Dismissed¶42

Sri Saganappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2026WP/15108/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata/Khatha mutation; revenue records; M.R. entries 1986-87; registered Sale Deed 27.11.1986; Revision Petition RP/23/2013-14; Deputy Commissioner Chikkamagalur; Tarikere Taluk; Lingadahalli Hobli; Survey No.49/3 Udeva Village; Survey No.11/2 Gangoor Village; title dispute to be decided by Civil Court; O.S. No.7/2011 dismissed 11.12.2019; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; KLR-RES; NC: 2026:KHC:28757; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The finding recorded by respondent No.2 in the impugned order - that the revenue entries were effected pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 27.11.1986 and that any dispute as to title of the subject land shall be decided before the competent Civil Court - is just and proper, and no interference is called for in the writ petition. ¶42

Sri Saganappa Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28757 WP NO.15108 OF 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15108 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SAGANAPPA S/O LATE KARIDASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT GOPALA BOOSENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 128.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PURNACHANDRA M. PURANIK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

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

¶15

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKKAMGALAUR - 577 101.

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE,

¶18

CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION, TARIKERE - 577 101.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:28757 WP NO.15108 OF 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SMT. ERAMMA, W/O RANGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT UDEVA VILLAGE, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 561 202.

¶24

SRI. SHIVAMURTHY, S/O RANGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT UDEVA VILLAGE, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 561 202.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP; SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING SETASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24^TH OCTOBER, 2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.RP/23/201314 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE KHATHA IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS BEARING SURVEY NO.49/3 MEASURING 2 ACRE 30 GUNTAS SITUATED AT UDEVA VILLAGE AND SURVEY NO.11/2 MEASURING 3 ACRE 03 GUNTAS SITUATED AT GANGOOR VILLAGE, BOTH COMING WITHIN LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT; AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:28757 WP NO.15108 OF 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Sri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel entered

¶35

appearance for respondents 5 and 6.

¶36

In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 24^th October, 2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.RP/23/2013-14; inter alia sought for direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the Khata in respect of the subject land.

¶37

Heard Sri. Purnachandra M. Puranik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order, wherein the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed holding that the revenue entries in terms of M.R.No.9/1986-87 and M.R.No.10/1986-87 have been effected based on the registered Sale Deed dated 27^th November, 1986 and the dispute in

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:28757 WP NO.15108 OF 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

respect of title of the subject land, if any, shall be decided before the competent Civil Court. On perusal of the impugned order, it is also forthcoming that the Original Suit No.7 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner against the respondents 5 and 6 herein, seeking relief of declaration and possession in respect of the subject land came to be dismissed before the Civil Judge and Additional JMFC., Trikere, by judgment and decree dated 11^th December, 2019. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order is just and proper. Therefore, no interference be called for in this petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶43

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶44

ARK

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri Saganappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Saganappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chowdamma Vs State of Karnataka

K Kumara Vs State of Karnataka

Y M Ningegowda Vs Marilingaiah

S Sudarshanam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a B Manohar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Radhamma Vs the State of Karnataka