The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Manjunatha — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Manjunatha — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal disposed of with directions to the appellants to: (i) consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.09.2023 in accordance with law; (ii) effect revenue entries in his favour only if his claim is found bona fide; (iii) give the respondent an opportunity of hearing before the final decision; and (iv) pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months. Pending IAs stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim to mutation of his name in the computerized RTC for 2 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.14 of Guddada Beeranahalli Village pursuant to his representation dated 15.09.2023 is bona fide (the appellants alleging a bogus grant, manufactured revenue entries and non-issue of saguvali chit), and whether revenue entries should be effected in his favour.

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the writ appeal, directing the appellants to consider the representation made by the petitioner (respondent herein) in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

On consideration of the representation, revenue entries should be effected in the respondent's favour only if the appellants are of the view that his claim is bona fide.

Key takeaways

The respondent must be given an opportunity of hearing before the authorities take a final decision on his representation.ratio¶41
The authorities must pass a reasoned and speaking order on the respondent's representation within three months.ratio¶41
Pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of in view of the disposal of the writ appeal.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench writ appeal (S.4, Karnataka High Court Act, 1961) by State revenue authorities against the Single Judge's order dated 14.08.2024 in W.P.No.21509/2024 (KLR-RES), which had directed the Tahsildar, Tarikere Taluk, to mutate the petitioner's name in the computerized RTC for 2 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.14, Guddada Beeranahalli Village, based on his representation dated 15.09.2023. Appellants contended the claim rested on a bogus grant (no Regularization Committee meeting on 14.04.1998, manufactured revenue entries, no saguvali chit issued). Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh, the Court disposed of the appeal directing the authorities to consider the representation in accordance with law, effect revenue entries only if the claim is viewed as bona fide, give the respondent an opportunity of hearing before the final decision, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months; pending IAs were disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15500-DB WA No. 411 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU-560 002.

THE TAHSILDAR, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228.

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)

AND:

SRI MANJUNATHA S/O SHIVALINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, GUDDADABEERANAHALLI VILLAGE,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15500-DB WA No. 411 of 2025

HC-KAR

LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 228.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MALATESH H, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2024 IN W.P.NO.21509/2024 (KLR-RES) AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The present intra Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21509/2024.

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Tarikere

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15500-DB WA No. 411 of 2025

HC-KAR

Taluk, to consider the representation dated 15.09.2023 for mutating his name in the computerized RTC in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situated in Survey No.14 of Guddada Beeranahalli Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chikmagaluru District, taking cognizance of the existing manual RTC entries and all relevant records.

The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with a direction to the Tahsildar to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.09.2023 and mutate his name in the computerized RTC in respect of the said land.

Mr. M.N. Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the petitioner's claim in respect of the said land is based on bogus grant inasmuch as no meeting of the Regularization Committee took place on 14.04.1998. He also submits that the revenue entries are also manufactured one and no saguvali chit has been issued in favour of the petitioner.

Be that as it may, we dispose of this writ appeal with a direction to the appellants to consider the representation made

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15500-DB WA No. 411 of 2025

HC-KAR

by the petitioner (respondent herein) in accordance with law and on consideration of the representation, if the appellants are of the view that the claim of the respondent is bona fide , then only they should effect the revenue entries in his favour. However, the respondent should be given an opportunity of hearing before taking final decision on his representation. The authorities must pass reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the respondent within three months from today.

In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand

disposed of.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

BKV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26