Thayamma Vs the Tahasildar

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23.11.2023 AND 15.10.2025 AS PER ANNX-A AND A1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for both the respondents.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioner's father was granted 4 acres of land in Sy.No.23 of Kemmanapura Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, in terms of the resolution passed by the Committee for Regulation of Unauthorised Occupation on 29.04.1981. Thereafter, a saguvali chit was also issued in favour of late Sri.Kaadaiah @ Kaadegowda and his name was also entered in the revenue

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8839 WP No. 1181 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

records. However, after the year 2000, the grantee's name was not continued in the computerized RTC. The petitioners being the legal heirs of late Sri Kaadaiah, the grantee, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.R.A.169/2019, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal by Order dated 23.11.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, in R.P.135/2021. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 06.10.2023 setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner while directing the Tahsildar to verify from the original records as to the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioners and thereafter, proceed to enter the name of the petitioners as legal heirs of the original grantee if it is found that the original records contain the information regarding the grant made in favour of Sri.Kaadaiah. Learned counsel submits that even after such a direction was issued by the Deputy Commissioner and several representations were given by the petitioners, the respondent-Tahsildar has failed to redress the grievance of the petitioners.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:8839 WP No. 1181 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Having regard to the contentions made by the petitioners, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.1-Tahsildar, Mysore Taluk, to verify from the original records and find out if the grant was indeed made in favour of Sri.Kaadaiah, pursuant to which the saguvali chit was issued in favour of the grantee and if mutation entries were already made in favour of the grantee. If such information is found from the records, then the Tahsildar shall proceed to enter the names of the legal heirs of late Sri.Kaadaiah in the revenue records. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

Ordered accordingly.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶38

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Thayamma v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thayamma v. the Tahasildar

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 Tolachamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bailappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S Shashank Infra Project Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Puttaswamy, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Narayana Reddy Vs the Tahsildar

Smt Narayanamma Vs the State of Karnataka