Disposed¶40

Smt v. Lalitha v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2025WP/29144/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), WP No.29144 of 2025, decided 24.09.2025 by R Devdas J. Keywords: mutation of revenue records; entry of name in RTC/Pahani; Tahsildar's statutory duty to decide mutation application by speaking endorsement; non-consideration of representation; Article 226; Sy.No.73, 7 acres 20 guntas, Sarakki Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk; title through great grandfather Sri.Appayanna; direction to decide within 3 months; disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4-Tahasildar to consider the petitioner's applications at Annexure-G series, issue notice to all concerned, and pass necessary orders either accepting the claim or rejecting it by reasoned endorsement; entire exercise to be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Smt v Lalitha Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.4-Tahasildar, Bangalore South Taluk, was obliged to consider and decide the petitioner's Annexure-G applications seeking entry of her name in the revenue records (RTC) in respect of Sy.No.73, Sarakki Village, rather than keeping quiet without passing any order.

¶30

Court's answer

It is the duty of the Tahasildar, whenever such applications are filed, to consider the same and pass necessary orders either entertaining the application or rejecting it along with an endorsement; the Tahasildar cannot keep quiet after receiving the applicant's application.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

On that basis, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4-Tahasildar to consider the Annexure-G series applications, issue notice to all concerned, and pass necessary orders either accepting the petitioner's claim or rejecting it with reasons recorded in the endorsement.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (KLR-RES) under Article 226 — petitioner sought a direction to respondent No.4-Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, to consider her representations dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-F), 21.03.2025 (Annexure-G1) and 20.06.2025 (Annexures-G2 to G4) and to mutate the revenue records in her favour in respect of land in Survey No.73 measuring 7 acres 20 guntas at Sarakki Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, on the strength of a sale deed under which her great grandfather Sri.Appayanna acquired title — Held: whenever such applications are filed, it is the duty of the Tahasildar to consider the same and pass necessary orders either entertaining the application or rejecting it with an endorsement; the Tahasildar cannot keep quiet after receiving the application — Writ petition disposed of directing the Tahasildar to consider the Annexure-G applications, issue notice to all concerned and pass orders either accepting or rejecting the claim with reasons, within three months.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:38405 WP No. 29144 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.29144 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. V. LALITHA W/O. PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT ARALASANDRA KASABA HOBLI MADALA KOTE POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA

¶16

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 009.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560 009.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:38405 WP No. 29144 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 009.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.01.2025 (ANNX-F), 21.03.2025 (ANNX-G1), 20.06.2025 (ANNX-G2, ANNX-G3 AND ANNX-G4) AND MUTATE THE REVENUE RECORDS IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.73 MEASURING 7 ACRES 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT SARAKI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH FORTHWITH AT ANY RATE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS.

¶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 High Court Government Pleader takes

¶29

notice for all the respondents.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that her application at Annexure-G series have not been considered by the respondent No.4-Tahasildar, Bangalore South Taluk to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:38405 WP No. 29144 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at Annexure-G application, the petitioner has requested the Tahasildar to enter her name in the RTC in respect of 7 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.73 of Sarakki Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and the petitioner has furnished a copy of the sale deed under which the petitioner’s great grandfather Sri.Appayanna acquired title, along with the copies of survey settlement and Record of Rights.

¶35

Learned HCGP submits that no reasons are forthcoming from the application as to why the name of the petitioner’s great grandfather was not entered in the revenue records pursuant to the registered sale deed.

¶36

This Court is of the considered opinion that whenever such applications are filed, it is the duty of the Tahasildar to consider the same and pass necessary orders either entertaining the application or rejecting the same along with an endorsement. The Tahasildar cannot keep

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38405 WP No. 29144 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

quiet after receiving the application at the hands of the petitioner.

¶40

In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4-Tahasildar to consider the applications filed by the petitioners at Annexure-G series, issue notice to all concerned and thereafter pass necessary orders either accepting the claim of the petitioner or rejecting the same for reasons to be furnished in the endorsement. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

Learned High Court Government Pleader is

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶44

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt v. Lalitha v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt v. Lalitha 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

Smt. Meenakshamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Chikka Yallamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramegowda Vs State of Karnataka

N.S. Srikanth Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Gadhave Rushikesh Dadabhau Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka