Disposed

Sri. Anjinappa v. Srinivas

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2026CCC/382/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil contempt petition after the Tahsildar filed a compliance affidavit showing verification of land records for Sy. No. 59, Maragondanahalli Village. The affidavit revealed discrepancies in certain RTC pages and mutation entries, and confirmed that original grant records were unavailable. The Tahsildar issued an endorsement on 19.03.2025, which the court accepted as compliance with the writ court's direction. The contempt petition was consigned.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition consigned; compliance with writ court order accepted.

Sri. Anjinappa Vs Srinivas — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

HC-KAR

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:50962-DB CCC No. 382 of 2025

¶3

¶4

CNR: KAHC010221582025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶9

AND

¶10

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶11

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.382 OF 2025

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI.ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE BENGALURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT GULAGANJINAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI. BANGALORE-560 074.

¶14

…COMPLAINANT

¶15

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

SRINIVAS, MAJOR THE TAHASILDHAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. ...ACCUSED 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR A1 & PROFORMA R2)

¶20

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED PERSON APPROPRIATELY FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.5956/2024 (KLR-RES).

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:50962-DB CCC No. 382 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CNR: KAHC010221582025

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and

¶26

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶29

Heard learned Counsel for the complainant and learned

¶30

Additional Government Advocate for the accused.

¶31

2. The petition is filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5956/2024. The order of the writ Court reads as follows:

¶32

"Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶33

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in Sy. No.59, measuring 3 acres situated at Maragondanahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, originally a gomal land, was being cultivated by petitioner's father Sri. Bengaluraiah. The then Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 21.12.1979 passed an order granting the said land in favour of the petitioner's father, namely Bengaluraiah. Thereafter the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner passed the order dated 28.01.1980 regularising the unauthorized cultivation of Sri. Bengaluraiah. Consequently saguvali chit was issued in favour of Sri. Bengaluraiah on 02.04.1980 in respect of the subject land and name of Sri. Bengaluraiah was also entered in the mutation register M.R. No.7/1981- 82. Since then, the petitioner and his father are in physical possession of the subject

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50962-DB CCC No. 382 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CNR: KAHC010221582025

¶37

land and are cultivating the same till today. The petitioner's father Sri. Bengaluraiah passed away on 15.01.2019 leaving behind the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in Sy.No.59, measuring 3 acres situate at Maragondanahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶38

3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, however after computerisation, though the petitioner's father approached the respondent – authorities to issue computerised RTC of the said land, same has not been issued. After death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner has made representations to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein to issue computerised RTC in his favour, vide Annexures - K, L and M, dated 08.12.2023. As the said representations have not yet been considered by the respondents, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court seeking a direction to the respondents No.2 to 4 to consider the representations made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶39

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds from the material on record that the name of the petitioner's father was earlier entered in the land revenue records. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the Tahsildar to secure the original grant records, Saguvali Chit issue register and other contemporaneous records to satisfy himself regarding the grant made in favour of the father of the petitioner. The Tahsildar is duty bound to look into all these aspects and pass necessary orders.

¶40

4. Consequently, this writ petition stands allowed with a specific direction to the 4th respondent -Tahsildar to consider the representation given by the petitioner and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, verify the original records and pass necessary orders to enter the name of the petitioner in the land revenue records as expeditiously as possible and thereby issue computerized RTC, in accordance

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:50962-DB CCC No. 382 of 2025

¶43

¶44

CNR: KAHC010221582025

¶45

with law, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶46

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today."

¶47

3. In the compliance affidavit dated 29.04.2026 it is

¶48

stated as follows:

¶49

"3. I state that, we have noticed that, hand written RTC bearing page nos. 246 and 247 are genuine and in addition to the hand written RTC bearing page nos. 36, 37 and 35, which are found to be mismatching with the original in respect of colour of Ink and hand writing. On comparison and verification between genuine RTCs of page nos. 246 and 247 with that of RTC's page nos. 36, 37 and 35 it is found that pages 36, 37 and 35 have been inserted between page nos. 246 and 247. The copies of RTC's page nos. 246, 247, 36, 37 and 35 are herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R1.

¶50

4. I state that, on verifying the MR entries from 01/81-82 to 06/81-82 are found to be genuine, however, MRS 7/81-82 have different hand writing, colour of the Ink and approved signature. The copy of the MR entry is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R2.

¶51

5. I state that, on the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, on comparing the land records enclosed along with the registration of the complainant and the land related records available with the record room, pertaining to Sy.No.59, Maragondahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, it is found that, grant records such as Grant certificate, Darakshu Memorandum, Official Memorandum, Kimath paid challan etc., are not available and same has been officially ratified by the concern record room-in-charge, Manager (incharge of Record Room) and Grade-II Tahsildar. The copy of the said communication is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R3.

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:50962-DB CCC No. 382 of 2025

¶54

¶55

CNR: KAHC010221582025

¶56

6. I submit that the ink used in the taking of entries in the RTC and other relevant records to show the name of the petitioner as a grantee does not corroborate with that of the similar entries of the same period. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed an appropriate order by giving the specific direction to consider the representation given by the Petitioner, to verify the original records and pass necessary orders to enter name of the Petitioners in revenue land records. On the direction of the High Court, we have verified the records, obtained the reports from the record room, and accordingly, issued an endorsement dated 19.03.2025 to the Petitioner. Hence complying the Hon'ble Court Karnataka. The copy of the endorsement issued on 19.03.2025 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R4."

¶57

4. Thus in our opinion, the order of the writ Court has been complied with after due verification of the available records. Apology for the delay in complying with the order is also tendered which is accepted.

¶58

5. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is consigned.

¶59

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶61

KSR

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri. Anjinappa v. Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Anjinappa v. Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases