Sri. K B Nagarajaiah Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30-01-2024 ANNEXURE-C AND EFFECT KATHA IN THE NAME OF FATHER OF THE PETITIONER BALAIAH S/O PATEL MALLAIAH IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY. NO.22/2 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 0.11 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KANNASANDRA VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT IN THE REVENUE RECORDS EXPEDITIOUSLY AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The captioned writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondent No.4 – Tahasildar in not acting on the representation submitted by the petitioner to

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:698 WP No. 28379 of 2024

¶31

effect mutation by taking cognizance of the sale deed dated 13.03.1980 obtained by the petitioner’s father. Hence, this petition.

¶32

2. Facts leading to the case are;

¶33

The subject matter of the petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.22/2 measuring 11 guntas including 1 gunta Phoot Karab situated at Kannasandra Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District.

¶34

3. The petitioner asserts that his father has purchased the petition land measuring 12 guntas from one Chandrashekaraiah under registered sale deed dated 13.03.1980. The petitioner by way of representation has made an attempt to bring it notice of the Revenue Authorities that the original owner – Siddamma having sold the property, her name is still continued in the RTC and therefore, a request is made to reflect appropriate changes by taking cognizance of the sale transaction.

¶35

4. Learned AGA, however, resisting this writ petition has vehemently argued and contended that unless the mutation effected in favour of original owner’s name - Siddamma is

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:698 WP No. 28379 of 2024

¶38

challenged, the petitioner cannot maintain a representation to seek change of katha.

¶39

5. This argument is fundamentally flawed. The petitioner is not questioning Siddamma’s title. On the contrary, the petitioner is contending that the original owner - Siddamma has conveyed the petition land in favour of Chandrashekaraiah by executing the registered sale deed. The said Chadrashekaraiah, in turn, has conveyed the petition property in favour of the petitioner’s father under registered sale deed dated 13.03.1980. Now, the petitioner’s father is also no more.

¶40

6. In the light of these significant details, the case on hand has ended in complications only on account of lack of diligence on the part of jurisdictional Tahasildar, who has failed to act on the intimation given by the jurisdictional SubRegistrar. Chadrashekaraiah purchased this petition land much prior to 1980. If the jurisdictional Tahasildar had acted in terms of the mandate provided under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the present situation would not arise for consideration.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:698 WP No. 28379 of 2024

¶43

7. Be that as it may, if the land is conveyed under properly executed registered documents, the Revenue Authorities are required to look into the transactions by taking cognizance of the encumbrance certificate and the sale deeds, if any, and accordingly, pass appropriate orders. Since there is clear lack of diligence on the part of respondent No.4 – Tahasildar, this is a fit case, where mandamus lies. The petitioner, who is tracing title over the petition land based on the registered sale deed obtained by his father, has a legal right. The respondent No.4 – Tahasildar is equally obligated to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders strictly aligning with the mandate provided under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶44

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶47

(ii) The respondent No.4 – Tahasildar is hereby directed to forthwith consider the petitioner’s representation dated

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:698 WP No. 28379 of 2024

¶50

31.01.2024 and effect katha by taking cognizance of the title documents.

¶51

(iii) The petitioner shall furnish Encumbrance Certificate reflecting the transaction between Siddamma and Chandrashekaraiah and also transaction reflected between the petitioner’s father and Chandrashekaraiah.

¶52

(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of Encumbrance Certificate and certified copy of the title documents.

¶53

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶54

NBM

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri. K B Nagarajaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K B Nagarajaiah 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

Sri S M Anjinappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Girish Poojary Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunatha T v Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshminarayanappa P Vs the State of Karnataka