MR. T GOVINDAYYA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — WP/6989/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: KAHC010153892026

Filing Number

WP/6968/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

WP/6989/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Judge

R Devdas

Coram

R Devdas

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 144 )

Sub-Category

RES-Residuary ( 95 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MR. T GOVINDAYYA

    Adv. MAHADESHWARAN C N

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  2. 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

  3. 3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

  4. 4.THE SUB-DIVISION OFFICER

  5. 5.THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

  6. 6.THE TAHSILDAR,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    R DevdasView PDF

    The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Mr. T Govindayya as withdrawn on April 9, 2026. The petitioner sought to update revenue records to carry forward his name from old survey number 70 to new survey number 175, but withdrew the petition after his counsel submitted that he should approach the Tahsildar to implement directions already issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to pursue the matter further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Mar-2026

    Non-Compliance Of Office-Objns For 1St Time

    District Judge (Ood2)

  4. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/6989/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Mr. T Govindayya as withdrawn on April 9, 2026. The petitioner sought to update revenue records to carry forward his name from old survey number 70 to new survey number 175, but withdrew the petition after his counsel submitted that he should approach the Tahsildar to implement directions already issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to pursue the matter further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case