Disposed¶28

Sri C M Byyanna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2025WP/22655/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; Tahsildar Hoskote Taluk; saguvali chit; Form-10; mutation of land records; regularization of unauthorised occupation committee order 18.10.1993; 2 acres Survey No.78 Chokkasandra Village; representation dated 24.06.2025 Annexure-F; two-month compliance timeline; memo of appearance four weeks; HCGP Seshu V; counsel Dayananda K.G; Justice R Devdas; WP No. 22655 of 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR); NC: 2025:KHC:30403; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk, to verify the records regarding the committee order dated 18.10.1993 and the Saguvali chit issued on 14.08.2006; if both are found true, to mutate and enter the petitioner's name in the land records after collecting the necessary fee, completing the exercise within two months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Sri C M Byyanna Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahsildar, Hoskote Taluk, should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure-F) and pass orders to issue Form-10/saguvali chit and enter the petitioner's name in the land records pursuant to the saguvali chit issued on 14.08.2006, which followed the regularization committee's order dated 18.10.1993 granting 2 acres in Survey No.78, Chokkasandra Village, Hoskote Taluk.

¶25

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk, to verify the records and ascertain whether the committee passed the order dated 18.10.1993 and whether a Saguvali chit was issued in favour of the petitioner on 14.08.2006.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

If the records confirm both facts (committee order dated 18.10.1993 and Saguvali chit dated 14.08.2006), the Tahsildar shall mutate and enter the petitioner's name in the land records after collecting the necessary fee.

¶29

Key takeaways

The entire exercise (verification and, if confirmed, mutation) shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶30
The learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file a memo of appearance within four weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Arts. 226 & 227, Constitution of India) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (R Devdas J., oral order dated 05.08.2025). The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Hoskote Taluk, to consider his representation dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure-F) and to issue Form-10/saguvali chit and enter his name in the land records, on the basis that a Committee for regularization of unauthorised occupation had ordered grant of 2 acres in Survey No.78, Chokkasandra Village, Hoskote Taluk, on 18.10.1993, and a saguvali chit was issued on 14.08.2006 without consequential mutation. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the Tahsildar to verify these two facts from the records and, if confirmed, to mutate the petitioner's name after collecting the necessary fee, within two months from receipt of a copy of the order; the HCGP was permitted to file a memo of appearance within four weeks. No cases were cited and no costs or quantum awarded.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30403 WP No. 22655 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 22655 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. C.M. BYYANNA, S/O. LATE MUNISHYAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, CHOKKASANDRA VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 122.

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DAYANANDA K.G, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, HOSKOTE TALUK HOSKOTE - 562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

&RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.06.2025 VIDE ANNX-F AND ETC.,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:30403 WP No. 22655 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Hoskote, to consider the representation dated 24.06.2025 at Annexure-F given by the petitioner and pass necessary orders to issue Form-10, saguvali chit and enter the name of the petitioner in the land records, to enter the name of the petitioner in the land records pursuant to the saguvali chit issued in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Committee for regularization of unauthorised occupation had passed an order on 18.10.1993, granting 2 acres of land in Survey No.78 of Chokkasandra Village, Hoskote Taluk, to the petitioner and pursuant thereto, a saguvali chit was issued to the petitioner on 14.08.2006. However, the name of the petitioner has not been entered in the land records.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30403 WP No. 22655 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of with a

¶29

direction to respondent No.2-Thasildar, Hosakote Taluk, to verify the records and find out if such an order was passed by the committee on 18.10.1993 and whether Saguvali chit was issued in favour of the petitioner on 14.08.2006. If it is found from the records that the two facts stated hereinabove are true, then the Tahsildar shall proceed to mutate and enter the name of the petitioner in the land records, after collecting the necessary fee.

¶30

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 this order.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.

¶32

Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to

¶33

file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶34

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶35

Sri C M Byyanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C M Byyanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siraj Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

B Y Vishesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Zeenath Begum @ Zeenath Unnisa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Hosuraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

A B Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ajay M C., Vs the Deputy Commissioner Office