Karnataka High Court
LEGAL SUBJECT
Property and Real Estate Law
Judgment analyses where this is the main or secondary subject.Latest analyses
30 ARTICLES
Karnataka High Court
Temporary injunction requires prima facie proof of possession and identifiable property boundaries.
The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 122 of 2021 seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants in respect of agricultural property and applied for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules...2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
A purchaser seeking declaration of title must establish the vendor’s title to the property.
The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and perpetual injunction over a property allegedly purchased from Yamanayya under a registered sale deed dated 2 September 2004.3 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Claims challenging family-property transfers were time-barred when brought more than three years after majority.
The plaintiffs and Defendants 1–5 claimed descent from Lalsab, who had two wives.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Unsupported allegations of police interference do not warrant writ protection in a pending land dispute.
The petitioners sought a writ directing police authorities not to dispossess them from land in Survey No. 85/2B, Agarkhed, and to provide protection against private persons allegedly attempting to dispossess them2 MIN READ↗
Gujarat High Court
Payment of municipal taxes over monthly rent does not shift a tenancy from Section 12(3)(a) to Section 12(3)(b).
The petitioner, a legal heir of the original tenant, challenged concurrent eviction decrees for non-payment of rent.3 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Landowners under preliminary acquisition notifications are entitled to government-order consent-award benefits.
The petitioners’ lands were included in a preliminary land-acquisition notification dated 27 June 2022 for the Upper Krishna Project.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
PTCL Resumption Proceedings Initiated After 19 Years Are Barred by Laches
The land was granted to Sannakanchigaiah in 1977 and sold by him to Revannasiddaiah in 2003. Revannasiddaiah later agreed to sell the land to petitioner No. 1; after his death, petitioner No. 1 sued his legal represen...2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Decades-long delay and laches must be considered before ordering resumption under the PTCL Act.
The subject land was granted to the original grantee in 1956 and sold under a registered sale deed in 1971.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court quashes land resumption orders after authorities ignored a 41-year delay and directs restoration of possession to purchasers
The land in dispute was granted to Huchaiah in 1964 and sold in 1966.1 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
A 41-year delay in PTCL resumption proceedings renders the resumption order unsustainable.
The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 23 April 2024 directing resumption of the subject land under the PTCL Act.1 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka HC: Heirs cannot use PTCL Act to undo a grantee’s voluntary land sale after a nearly eight-year delay
The land was granted in 1962. In 2003, the original grantee sold 20 guntas by registered sale deed.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Anticipatory bail is warranted where a property dispute is primarily civil and document-based.
The petitions were filed by Accused Nos. 1–4 and 6–7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 117/2026, registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 464, 465, 468, 447 and 506 of the IPC.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
53-year delay overlooked: Karnataka High Court quashes PTCL land-resumption orders
The land had been granted to the original grantee in 1951, and a portion was sold under a registered sale deed in 1971.1 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Resumption orders are unsustainable when authorities fail to consider decades-long delay and laches.
The subject land, measuring 2 acres, was granted in 1945–46. In 1969, 1 acre 20 guntas was sold.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Arbitral compensation based on land potential is a question of fact, not law, and warrants no Section 34 interference.
Land measuring 3,939 sq. m. in Sy. No. 197, Kenchanakuppe Village, was acquired for widening NH-275 following notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka HC upholds statewide directions to inventory and GIS-map municipal trust properties
The Town Municipal Council auctioned 1 acre and 7 guntas in Survey No. 123/2 in 1977 to the first respondent’s father.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
A claimant cannot pursue an enhancement appeal after recording full satisfaction of the award.
Land belonging to respondent No. 1 was acquired for the appellant institute. After receiving compensation, she sought a reference; the Reference Court enhanced compensation by an award dated 1 August 2022.2 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Article 227 Review Cannot Reappraise Concurrent Injunction Orders Absent Patent Illegality or Perversity.
The suit properties were ancestral properties. After Sakharam Ghule’s death, his daughter, Krushnabai, was recorded as one of his legal heirs in the revenue records. The defendants later claimed that the properties ha...2 MIN READ↗
Gujarat High Court
Panchayat encroachment proceedings must afford a hearing under Rule 55(2).
The petitioner challenged notices dated 17 and 27 July 2026 directing removal of an alleged encroachment on Government land within two days.2 MIN READ↗
Gujarat High Court
Panchayat encroachment notices must comply with Rule 55(2)’s hearing requirements.
The petitioner challenged notices dated 17 and 27 July 2026 directing removal of an alleged encroachment on Government land within two days and requiring documents supporting the petitioner’s claim to the property2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Prior rulings cannot dispose of claims without identifying the issues actually decided.
The appeals concerned competing claims to land and residential properties in Survey No. 134, Binnamangala Village.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
A testamentary bar on alienation does not prevent beneficiaries from letting property and collecting rent.
The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 4992/2024 seeking to have a 2020 gift deed and a 2022 rectification deed concerning the suit ‘B’ schedule property declared void.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
A registered mortgage remains subsisting until its redemption is proved.
The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 6 May 2026 in Revision Petition No. 44/2025, which transferred mutation entries in favour of the private respondents.2 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Disputed questions of possession and compensation are unsuitable for determination in writ proceedings.
The petitioners sought a declaration under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, that acquisitions of land in Village Bahapur...2 MIN READ↗
Gujarat High Court
A heritage-delisting decision made without a personal hearing was set aside.
The petitioners sought removal of their property in Shahpur, Ahmedabad, from the heritage structures list, stating that the bungalow was dilapidated and required repairs.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
A consequential attachment cannot be challenged after the underlying order attains finality.
The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar’s order dated 16 January 2025 attaching property in connection with amounts allegedly due to respondents 5 and 6.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to mutate land converted for non-agricultural use.
The petitioner challenged mutation entries in M.R. Nos. H:53/2022-23 and H:42/2021-22 and consequential RTC extracts relating to land it claimed to have purchased under a registered sale deed dated 17 April 2006.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Revenue authorities cannot unsettle decades-old land grants through unjustifiably belated action.
The petitioner challenged a Tahsildar’s order dated 1 June 2021 concerning land at Kalmane Village, Survey No. 49.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
A phodi appeal cannot be accepted without determining when the original phodi was conducted.
The petitioner challenged the order dated 20 March 2026 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Land Records, Mysuru Division, in Revision Petition Case No. REV/324/2025.1 MIN READ↗No articles match these filters.