Mr.H.B.Ashok Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES TO EFFECT REVENUE ENTRIES ON RTC RECORDS IN RESPECT OF 15 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY. NO.262/3 SITUATED IN HINKAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, BASED ON THE SALE DEED DATED 23.08.2007 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS WITHIN REASONABLE TIME.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned HCGP takes notice for all the respondents.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioners is that although this Court has passed a judgment and decree in RSA No.829/2018 affirming the petitioners' title over 15 guntas of land in Sy.No. *262/3 of Hinkal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District, by judgment dated 13.03.2024, the Tahsildar has not re-entered the names of the petitioners in the revenue records.

¶30

*Corrected vide Court Order dated 22.04.2026

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33342 WP No. 23948 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners purchased the land in question under registered sale deed dated 23.08.2004 from Sri.A.Papanna, who is respondent No.13 in RSA No.829/2018. However, a suit was filed by the children of Sri.A.Papanna's vendor in O.S.No.470/2008 seeking partition while also questioning the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court reversed

¶34

the judgment of the trial Court and allowed the suit. Nevertheless, this Court in RSA No.829/2018 has set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court while upholding the orders passed by the trial Court, which had dismissed the suit. In the meanwhile, after orders were passed by the First Appellate Court, the revenue entries were mutated in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 10 herein. Therefore, the petitioners have given a representation to the respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk on 04.05.2024 and a legal notice is also issued on

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:33342 WP No. 23948 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

21.05.2025. However, the Tahsildar has not restored the

¶39

names of the petitioners in the revenue records.

¶40

Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove,

¶41

this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent No.4 - Tahsildar is duty bound to re-enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue records pursuant to the order passed by this Court in RSA No.829/2018.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk to verify the copy of the judgment and decree passed in RSA No.829/2018 and thereafter, proceed to re-enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt

¶43

of copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶45

MH/-

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Mr.H.B.Ashok v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.H.B.Ashok v. the 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

Sri. Chinnegowda G M Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt. Poornima R Ullal, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B C Siddagangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mamta Bai Vs the Tahasildar

Smt. Kariyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner