Allowed¶45

Sri H M Himachalapathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026WP/13728/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khatha/khata change; endorsement without jurisdiction; Special Tahsildar Bengaluru East Taluk; Assistant Commissioner Bengaluru North Sub-Division; superior revenue authority's binding order; Section 136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964; writ of mandamus Articles 226/227; registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.2025; order dated 29.07.2025; endorsement dated 25.08.2025 No. RRT(B) CR/17/2025-26; WP No. 13728 of 2026 (KLR-RES); H M Himachalapathi v. State of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned endorsement dated 25.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-C) set aside; respondent No.3 directed to implement respondent No.2's order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-B) within one week from receipt of certified copy of the order. ¶45

Sri H M Himachalapathi Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the Endorsement dated 25.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3 declining khatha change despite the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction, and whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondent No.3 to effect khatha in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

Court's answer

Respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned Endorsement dated 25.08.2025 and to sit over the order passed by its higher authority under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The action of respondent No.3 in issuing the endorsement is deprecated as virtually an illegal order; the Court finds force in the petitioner's counsel's submission.

¶41

Key takeaways

Respondent No.3 is directed to implement the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-B) within one week from receipt of certified copy of this order.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (E.S. Indiresh, J.) allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an Endorsement dated 25.08.2025 (No. RRT(B) CR/17/2025-26) issued by the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk (respondent No.3). The petitioner sought khatha change in terms of a registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.2025; the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division (respondent No.2), by order dated 29.07.2025, had directed respondent No.3 to change khatha accordingly. The Tahsildar nevertheless endorsed refusal (attributed by the State to another pending proceeding over the same land). Held: respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to issue such an Endorsement and sit over the order of its higher authority under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the action was deprecated as virtually an illegal order. The endorsement was set aside and respondent No.3 was directed to implement respondent No.2's order within one week from receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27116 WP No. 13728 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 13728 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI H M HIMACHALAPATHI S/O. LATE SRI. H.C. MANJUNATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO. 147, HOSAHALLI ROAD HUNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

REP. BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶15

VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶16

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560049.

¶19

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK

¶20

K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560036.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP. FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ORDER BEARING NO: RRT(B) CR/17/2025-26 DATED 25.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:27116 WP No. 13728 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

R3 TO EFFECT KHATHA FOR THE AFORESAID SCHEDULE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondents.

¶30

The petitioner is assailing the Endorsement dated 25.08.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-C) interalia sought to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to effect khatha in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

Sri.R.B.Sadashivappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended with reference to the order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2, wherein, a direction has been issued to the respondent No.3 herein to change the khatha in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure-A). Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned endorsement issued by

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:27116 WP No. 13728 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

respondent No.3 at Annexure-C is without jurisdiction and sought for interference of this Court.

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that there is another proceeding in respect of the same subject land and therefore, the impugned endorsement has been issued by the respondent No.3.

¶37

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the writ petition, it would indicate that the petitioner is seeking change of Khatha in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure-A). In this regard, the respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-B) directing the respondent No.3 herein to change the khatha in favour of the petitioner in terms of the registered sale deed. It is forthcoming from the impugned Endorsement dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure-C) that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to issue such an Endorsement and sit over the order passed by their higher authority under Section

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:27116 WP No. 13728 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The action of respondent No.3 is hereby deprecated and it is virtually an illegal order passed by respondent No.3, and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶42

Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶43

ORDER

¶44

a) Writ petition is allowed.

¶45

b) The impugned endorsement dated 25.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-C) is accordingly, set aside.

¶46

c) The respondent No.3 is directed to implement the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-B), within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶47

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32

Sri H M Himachalapathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H M Himachalapathi v. State of Karnataka

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. Suma Vs the Tahsildar

Sri. Shreenivasa @ Shreenivasa Gowda D R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Sudha Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Roopa N Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M.S. Rudresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Sowbhagya Vs the State of Karnataka