Sri.Umesh K Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri.Umesh K Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, to consider the petitioner's representation (with the petition itself treated as a representation), verify the records, and if the sale deed is found to have been registered before the jurisdictional sub-registrar at the hands of the Tahsildar, to enter the names of the legal heirs of late Sri. Krishnappa in the revenue records, issue hakkupatra and enter the petitioner's name in the revenue records; the entire exercise to be completed within two months from receipt of a copy of the order; the learned High Court Government Pleader permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents, particularly the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2025 and, upon verification of records, enter the petitioner's name as legal heir of late Sri. Krishnappa in the revenue records and issue hakkupatra.

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, to consider the representation given by the petitioner and to treat the petition itself as a representation given by the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The Tahsildar shall verify from the records, and if it is found that the sale deed was registered before the jurisdictional sub-registrar at the hands of the Tahsildar, then the Tahsildar shall enter the names of the legal heirs of late Sri. Krishnappa in the revenue records, issue hakkupatra and enter the petitioner's name in the revenue records.

Key takeaways

The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (R Devdas, J.) disposed of W.P. No. 17994 of 2025 (KLR-RES) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, son of the late Sri. Krishnappa, alleged that his father, formerly in unauthorized occupation of Sy.No.46 of Kadathanamale Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli (presently Yelahanka Taluk), had been granted a house site under Section 94(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 on 04.09.2012, followed by a registered sale deed executed by the Tahsildar (Annexure-B); yet the 4th respondent-Tahsildar passed no orders on the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-E) seeking entry of his name as sole legal heir in the revenue records. The Court directed the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, to treat the petition itself as a representation, verify the records, and if the sale deed was found registered before the jurisdictional sub-registrar at the Tahsildar's hands, to enter the legal heirs' names of late Sri. Krishnappa in the revenue records, issue hakkupatra and enter the petitioner's name, completing the exercise within two months from receipt of a copy of the order.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32964 WP No. 17994 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 17994 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. UMESH K S/O SRI. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A MARASANDRA VILLAGE, (KADATHANAMALE DAKALE) HESARAGHATTA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VARADARAJA P.N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by PRINCIPAL SECRETARY JUANITA THEJESWINI REVENUE DEPARTMENT, Location: HIGH COURT OF M.S. BUILDING, KARNATAKA BENGALULRU - 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 009.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32964 WP No. 17994 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,

YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE E TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' father, the late Sri. Krishnappa, who was in unauthorized occupation in Sy.No.46 of Kadathanamale Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, presently Yelahanka Taluk, was granted a house site in terms

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32964 WP No. 17994 of 2025

HC-KAR

of provisions contained in Section 94(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, on 04.09.2012. Thereafter, a registered sale deed was executed by the Tahsildar as seen at AnnexureB. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite producing all these documents before the 4th respondent-Tahsildar and requesting to enter the name petitioner in the revenue records since he is the sole legal heir left behind by late Sri.Krishnappa, no orders have been passed by the Tahsildar.

Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, this writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, to consider the representation given by the petitioner and treat this petition itself as a representation given by the petitioner, verify from the records, and if it is found that such a sale deed was registered before the jurisdictional sub-registrar at the hands of the Tahsildar, then the Tahsildar shall proceed to enter the name of the legal heirs of late Sri.Krishnappa in the revenue records to issue hakkupatra and enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32964 WP No. 17994 of 2025

HC-KAR

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

rv

CT: BHK