Disposed¶43

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Maku

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026WA/877/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal No. 877 of 2025 (KLR-RES), High Court of Karnataka, decided 06.03.2026; intra court appeal against Single Judge order directing RTC mutation of 4 acres in Sy.No.14, Guddada beeranahalli Village, Tarikere Taluk; delay of 233 days condoned; allegations of forged grant, Pahani and suguvali chit records treated as new facts; appeal disposed with liberty to file review petition; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of with liberty to the appellants/State to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge seeking review of the judgment and order dated 14.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.21514/2024, and to take such other remedies as may be available under law; pending interim applications do not survive and stand disposed of. ¶43

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing mutation of the respondent's name in respect of 4 acres in Sy.No.14 should be interfered with, in view of the State's contention that the grant and the related revenue records (handwritten Pahanis for 1996-97 and 2001-02 and suguvali chits) are forged and fabricated, and were not placed before the Single Judge. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

The delay of 233 days in filing the writ appeal is condoned and I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Since new facts (the allegation that the grant, Pahanis and suguvali chits are forged and fabricated) have come on record in the appeal, the appropriate course for the State is to seek review of the Single Judge's judgment rather than have the Division Court decide the matter on the new material.

¶42

Key takeaways

The writ appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellants/State to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge seeking review of the judgment and order dated 14.08.2024 in W.P.No.21514/2024; the Single Judge's judgment is left otherwise untouched.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Division Bench (D K Singh and T.M. Nadaf, JJ.; judgment per D K Singh, J.), disposed of a writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act challenging the Single Judge's order dated 14.08.2024 in W.P.No.21514/2024 (KLR-RES), which had allowed the respondent-writ petitioner's claim and directed Respondent No.4 to consider his representation dated 26.09.2023 and mutate his name in the computerized RTC for 4 acres in Sy.No.14, Guddada beeranahalli Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chikmagaluru District, within six weeks. Condoning the 233-day delay in filing the appeal, the Bench held that the State's contentions — that the grant and the handwritten Pahanis of 1996-97 and 2001-02 and suguvali chits were forged and fabricated, and that these facts were not placed before the Single Judge — constituted new facts on record, for which the appropriate remedy was a review petition before the learned Single Judge, along with such other remedies as may be available under law. Pending interim applications were disposed of as not surviving.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13843-DB WA No. 877 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 877 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

THE TAHSILDAR TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKMAGALURU -577 101.

¶14

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH., AGA)

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. MAKU S/O. GANGARAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, GUDDADABEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13843-DB WA No. 877 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 228.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.21514/2024, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2024 IN WP NO.21514/2024, THE SAID WRIT PETITION BE DISMISSED, ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

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

¶27

The present Intra Court appeal has been filed

¶28

impugning the judgment and order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21514/2024 (KLR-RES) whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein has been allowed. The operative portion of the order reads as under:-

¶29

" ORDER

¶30

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶31

ii. Respondent No.4 is hereby directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.09.2023 and mutate the name of the petitioner in computerized

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13843-DB WA No. 877 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

RTC to the extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.14, situated at Guddada beeranahalli Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chikmagaluru District, taking cognizance of existing manual RTC records and all other relevant documents.

¶35

iii This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

¶36

The appeal has been filed along with I.A.No.1/2025 seeking to condone the delay of 233 days in filing the writ appeal, looking at the facts that the petitioner's claim is based on the forged and fabricated record, we condone the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal. I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed.

¶37

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

¶38

Mr. Mohammad Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants/State submit that the grant, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming right over the land in question appears to be a

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13843-DB WA No. 877 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

forged document, as it is clear from the revenue register that no committee meeting had taken place to grant the land in question in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the handwritten Pahanis from 1996 to 1997 and 2001 to 2002, and suguvali chits are not genuine, but forged and fabricated records. It is further submitted that these facts were not placed before the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by giving direction.

¶42

As new facts have come on record in the present appeal, it would be appropriate for the appellants/State to seek review of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Besides seeking review of the impugned judgment, the appellants may also take appropriate remedy as may be available to them under the law.

¶43