Facts
The petitioners in the two connected writ petitions challenged the State Government notification dated 7 December 2022 insofar as it concerned land in Survey No. 706/3, measuring 2 acres and 5 guntas, at Handhinakere village, Hassan.
Source reference: pp. 7–9The petitioners sought, among other reliefs, to have the notification quashed in respect of their properties and related revenue entries addressed.
Source reference: pp. 7–9They relied on a co-ordinate Bench decision in Smt. Dakshayini R.R. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, in which the same notification had been quashed concerning the properties in that case, with liberty reserved to the competent authorities to proceed under Section 13 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (“the Act”).
Source reference: p. 9, para. 2The respondents did not dispute the legal position stated in that decision.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 3Issues
1. Whether the notification dated 7 December 2022 should be quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioners’ properties, in light of the decision in Smt. Dakshayini R.R.
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 2–42. Whether the competent authority should retain liberty to take action concerning those properties under Section 13 of the Act.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 2; p. 10, para. 5Law Applied
The Court applied the legal position established by the co-ordinate Bench in Smt. Dakshayini R.R. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 3621 of 2024, decided on 7 August 2026: the impugned notification could be quashed in respect of the properties at issue, while the competent authorities retained liberty to take recourse under Section 13 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 2; p. 10, para. 5The respondents did not dispute that position.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 3Reasoning
The petitioners’ properties were covered by the same notification that had been considered in Smt. Dakshayini R.R.
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 2–4The Court noted that the respondents did not contest the precedent’s legal position and, on that basis, applied it to the properties identified in the connected petitions.
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 2–4The Court preserved the competent authorities’ ability to proceed under Section 13 of the Act.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 5Holding
The Court quashed the notification dated 7 December 2022 insofar as it related to the petitioners’ properties mentioned in Schedule B to the respective petitions.
It reserved liberty to the competent authority to take recourse under Section 13 of the Act and disposed of both writ petitions on those terms.
Source reference: p. 10, paras. 4–6Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 20041
Original Court PDF
SAHANA BvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
