Allowed¶51

Dr v. Kumaran v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2025WP/32064/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of Tahsildar's survey/11E sketch without notice to adjoining landowner; Section 46H Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964; Sy.No.90/3 and Sy.No.90/2, Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk; writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; fresh survey directed with notice to all adjacent land owners within four months; WP No. 32064 of 2019 (KLR-RES); decided 05.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued; the 11E sketch prepared by respondent No.5 - Tahsildar in respect of land bearing Sy.No.90/3, Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, is quashed; respondent Nos.4 to 7 directed to conduct a fresh survey of old Sy.No.90/3 (new Sy.No.90/3 & 4) after issuing notice to all the adjacent land owners within an outer limit of four months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the survey and 11E sketch effected by the Tahsildar in respect of Sy.No.90/3 without issuing notice to the petitioner, an adjoining land owner, is contrary to the provision contemplated under Section 46H of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶42

Court's answer

It stands undisputed (learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Additional Government Advocate did not seriously dispute it) that no notice was issued to the petitioner while conducting the survey.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner being the adjoining land owner, and there being a dispute between the adjoining lands in Sy.Nos.90/2 and 90/3, the Tahsildar ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before conducting the survey, as contemplated under Section 46H of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act; consequently the petitioner's prayer requires to be allowed.

¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (single judge, Rajesh Rai K) allowed a writ petition and quashed, by certiorari, the 11E sketch prepared by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Hobli (Bangalore North Taluk) for Sy.No.90/3, Kodigehalli village, made on the application of respondent Nos.8 to 12. The petitioner, absolute owner of Site No.558/1 in adjoining Sy.No.90/2 (purchased by registered sale deed dated 07.03.2009), had not been issued notice before the survey despite a dispute over the adjoining portion of Sy.Nos.90/2 and 90/3; the non-issue of notice, contrary to Section 46H of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, was not seriously disputed by the respondents. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 were directed to conduct a fresh survey after notice to all adjacent land owners within four months.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44940 WP No. 32064 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 32064 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. V. KUMARAN S/O SRI. R. VISWANATHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NE-120 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE CAMPUS BANGALORE PIN CODE-560 012

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 5^TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY

¶15

JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS (ADDL) REVENUE SURVEY OFFICE K.R CIRCLE, NEAR CENTURY CLUB BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS REVENUE SURVEY OFFICE K.R CIRCLE NEAR CENTURY CLUB BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44940 WP No. 32064 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BANGALORE NORTH TALUK MINI VIDHANASOUDHA YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE-560 064

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE-560 064

¶21

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE-560 064

¶22

THE TALUK SURVEYOR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE-560 064

¶23

UMA W/O LATE SRI RAMANJINAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶24

M VEENA D/O LATE T MUNIRAJU AGED MAJOR

¶25

M GEETHA D/O LATE T MUNIRAJU AGED MAJOR

¶26

M MANJULA D/O LATE T MUNIRAJU AGED MAJOR

¶27

M RAJASHEKAR D/O LATE T MUNIRAJU AGED MAJOR

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44940 WP No. 32064 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 12 ARE RESIDENTS OF KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 092

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-7, SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R8-11)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE SURVEY AND ACCOMPANYING 11E SKETCH EFFECTED IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.90/3 OF KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, ON THE BASIS OF APPLICATION NO.20050118138848 GIVEN BY R- 8 TO 12, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed 11E sketch prepared by respondent No.5 - Tahsildar, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in respect of land bearing Sy.No.90/3 situated at Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk on the basis of the application filed by respondent Nos.8 to 12.

¶38

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner in possession of the land bearing Site No.558/1

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44940 WP No. 32064 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

carved in Sy.No.90/2 of Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said site was allotted to one Puttaraju and consequently registered Sale Deed was executed on 29.11.2006 in his favour. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said site by way of registered Sale Deed dated 07.03.2009. Ever since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said site. However, respondent Nos.8 to 12 filed an application before respondent No.5 - Tahsildar to conduct a survey and to prepare a sketch in respect of the property bearing old Sy.No.90/ *3 (new Sy.No.90/3 & 4). Accordingly, respondent No.5 - Tahsildar conducted the survey sketch as per Annexure-'A'.

¶42

It is the specific contention of the petitioner that there is a dispute in respect of some portion of land adjoining to Sy.Nos.90/2 and 90/3. In such circumstance, the Tahsildar, without issuing notice to the petitioner, conducted the survey and issued 11E sketch as per Annexure-'A', which was against the provision contemplated under Section 46H of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶43

Corrected vide chamber order dated 19.11.2025

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44940 WP No. 32064 of 2019

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶47

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the entire records placed before me.

¶48

Learned counsel for the contesting respondents and learned Additional Government Advocate have not seriously disputed that the notice has not been issued to the petitioner while conducting a survey. In such circumstance, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being the adjoining land owner and also there is a dispute between adjoining land in Sy.Nos.90/2 and 90/3, the Tahsildar ought to have issued the notice to the petitioner before conducting a survey as contemplated under Section 46H of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner requires to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶51

ii. Writ of Certiorari is issued. 11E sketch prepared by respondent No.5 - Tahsildar in respect of land bearing Sy.No.90/3 situated

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44940 WP No. 32064 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

at Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk is quashed.

¶55

iii. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are directed to conduct a fresh survey of land bearing old Sy.No.90/ *3 (new Sy.No.90/3 & 4) situated at Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, after issuing notice to all the adjacent land owners within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶56

All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

¶57

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶58

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

¶59

Corrected vide chamber order dated 19.11.2025

Dr v. Kumaran v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr v. Kumaran 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

Chigatereappa Vs Shivakumar

Smt Arti Kishore Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. U.T. Annegowda Vs the Chief Secretary

N Govindaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sadath Ulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Veena S Swamy Vs N Sreenivasan