Disposed¶37

Smt. Suma v. the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026WP/15540/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), single judge (E.S. Indiresh J.), WP No. 15540 of 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR), NC: 2026:KHC:26752, decided 05.06.2026. Khata change / mutation dispute before Tahasildar, Chitradurga (RRT/VIVADA/CR.NO.493/2022-23). Tahasildar's order dated 23.02.2023 quashed where vendor's title rested on a 50-year-old registered sale deed dated 29.04.1971; direction issued to change khata per sale deed dated 02.02.2023 within three months. Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 disposed of. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: impugned order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure-D) quashed; respondent directed to change the khata in favour of the petitioners in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure-C) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶37

Smt. Suma Vs the Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent (Tahasildar) in RRT/VIVADA/CR.NO.493/2022-23, which required permission from the competent authority for change of khata despite the vendor's title resting on a registered sale deed of 29.04.1971, is sustainable.

¶24

Court's answer

Since the original sale deed of the vendor is 50 years old, the respondent cannot interfere with the rider as to taking permission from the competent authority after five decades to change the khata.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure-D) is quashed.

¶35

Key takeaways

The respondent is directed to change the khata in favour of the petitioner in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure-C), within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — challenge to order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure-D) passed by the Tahasildar, Chitradurga, in RRT/VIVADA/CR.NO.493/2022-23 — petitioners purchased the schedule property from one Prakashappa.B and others under registered sale deed dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure-C); the vendor had acquired the land from one Dandavani Achar under registered sale deed dated 29.04.1971 — held that since the original sale deed is 50 years old, the respondent cannot interfere with the rider as to taking permission from the competent authority after five decades to change the khata — impugned order quashed; respondent directed to change the khata in favour of the petitioners in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure-C) within three months from receipt of copy of the order — writ petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26752 WP No. 15540 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 15540 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUMA W/O A SURESHA RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC-AGRICULTURIST

¶10

SOWMYA A S D/O A SURESHA RAO AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/O PADMAMBA NILAYA HOLALKERE ROAD NEAR BY S R FLOUR MILL 1^ST CROSS, BARAGERI BEEDI CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 501

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASHING ORDER

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:26752 WP No. 15540 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RRT/VIVADA/CR.NO.493/2022-23 DTD 23.2.2023 PRODUCED AS ANNX-D. TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated

¶28

23.02.2023 (Annexure-D) issued by the respondent.

¶29

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 wherein the petitioner herein had purchased the schedule property from one Prakashappa.B and others as per the registered sale deed dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure-C).

¶30

It is also to be noted from the writ petition that the vendor of the petitioner herein had purchased the land in question from one Dandavani Achar as per the registered sale deed dated 29.04.1971. Taking into consideration that the vendor of the petitioner herein had acquired the property as

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:26752 WP No. 15540 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

per registered Sale Deed dated 29.04.1971, as the original sale

¶35

deed has been made 50 years back and now at this juncture the respondent cannot interfere with the rider as to taking permission from the competent authority after five decades to change the khata. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure-D) is hereby quashed and the respondent is directed to change the khata in favour of the petitioner in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure-C), within a period of three months from

¶36

the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶37

Accordingly writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶39

SNB

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Smt. Suma v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suma v. the Tahsildar

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. Mangalamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt. Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri v Ramprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K.N. Govindappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka