Rpw Warehousing Private Limited Vs Sri. Shiva Shankarappa

RPW WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 31P, SECTOR 38, GURGAON, HARYANA - 122001

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. M J JOSE

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. LOMESH KIRAN N., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. SHIVA SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE NAGAPPA AND SMT LAKSHMAMMA, RESIDING AT NO.110, HALEURU GRAMA, NANDAGUDI POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL-562 122.

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:1664-DB WA No. 1768 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶24

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA - 561203

¶25

TAHSILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562114 EMAIL. [email protected]

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R2-R4)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 23/08/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.25841/2025 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PRODUCED, ETC.

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶34

The present writ appeal has been filed the impugning

¶35

the judgment and order dated 23.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25841/2025 (KLR-RES) filed by respondent No.1 herein.

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:1664-DB WA No. 1768 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the

¶40

Writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶41

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to the Tahsildar, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, to implement the order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(H.O.)308 of 2020.

¶42

The grievance of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that despite the order being passed by the Assistant Commissioner directing the Tahsildar to take action in terms of Sections 127 to 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity 'the Act' ) to mutate and enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records based on the registered sale deed dated 19.01.1972, and the further communication issued by the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 16.03.2024, the Tahsildar was not taking appropriate action.

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1664-DB WA No. 1768 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The present appellant - M/s. RPW Warehousing Private Limited was not a party before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The appellant asserts its right over the land in question on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 04.09.2024. The case of the appellant before us is that the learned Single Judge was misled by not disclosing the order of the Tahsildar dated 15.12.2021, whereby the Tahsildar as per the direction of the Assistant Commissioner had considered the case of the petitioner for mutating his name in respect of the lands in Sy.No.201, and its sub-divisions situated in Nandagudi Village and Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The endorsement dated 15.12.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, Hoskote Taluk, would have the following reference:-

¶46

"1. Office of the Honourable Sub-Divisional Officer, Case No.R.A(Ho):308/2020, date 19/04/2021.

¶47

Report of the Revenue Inspector, Nandagudi Hobli, No:N-2:PR/25/20-21, date 18/01/2021."

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1664-DB WA No. 1768 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The Tahsildar after considering the report had held

¶51

that for registering the name of the petitioner in Sy.No.201 to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas situated in Nandagudi Village and Hobli, purchased by the petitioner's mother under the Sale Deed No.651/1971-72 dated 19.01.1972 could not be possible, as the petitioner or his mother was never in possession of the said land and therefore, registering in the name of the petitioner would not be possible.

¶52

As the Tahsildar had already acted upon the order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, there was no question of any direction being issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2025.

¶53

We take note of the fact that aforesaid order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Tahsildar was suppressed from the learned Single Judge, and the direction in paragraph No.3 came to be passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:1664-DB WA No. 1768 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

As the order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner was already acted upon by the Tahsildar, there was no question of any such direction being issued. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25841/2025 (KLR-RES). However, the petitioner/respondent No.1, if he so desires, is at liberty to challenge the order dated 15.12.2021 in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶58

In view of the appeal having been allowed, pending interim applications, if any, stand rejected.

¶59

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶61

NG

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Rpw Warehousing Private Limited v. Sri. Shiva Shankarappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rpw Warehousing Private Limited v. Sri. Shiva Shankarappa

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.Gangambika Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Residential Education Institution Society Vs Smt Tanuja R

Sri. Rama Veerasai Vs State of Karnataka

Mukunda H R Vs the Divisional Controller Bmtc

Sri. Prakash M Dhareshwara, Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrappa. Y Vs the Divisional Controller/Disciplinary Authority