Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri.M.Govindappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri.M.Govindappa Vs the State of KarnatakaSri.M.Govindappa v. the State of Karnataka

Disposed¶43

Sri.M.Govindappa v. the State of Karnataka

Mandamus – Land records

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2026WP/16878/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 16878 of 2026 (KLR-RES); High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Justice E.S. Indiresh; decided 23.06.2026. Mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directing Thasildar, Hosakote Taluk to consider petitioners' representations dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure-H series) in accordance with law after verifying original records, decision within three months; petitioners hold grant certificates (Annexures-F and G series); Appasandra Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District; petition disposed of. Counsel: Vijaya Kumar Bhat A. for petitioners; Spoorthy Hegde N., HCGP for respondents.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued: Thasildar, Hosakote Taluk (respondent No. 3) directed to consider the petitioners' representations at Annexure-H series in accordance with law after verifying original records and take an appropriate decision within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Why is it important?

Respondent No. 3 (Thasildar, Hosakote Taluk) was directed to consider the representations produced at Annexure-H series submitted by the petitioners. ¶38

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandamus issued: Thasildar, Hosakote Taluk (respondent No. 3) directed to consider the petitioners' representations at Annexure-H series in accordance with law after verifying original records and take an appropriate decision within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 15.05.2026 produced at Annexure-H series.

Court's answer

Respondent No. 3 (Thasildar, Hosakote Taluk) was directed to consider the representations produced at Annexure-H series submitted by the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

The consideration was to be in accordance with law, after verifying the original records available in the Thasildar's office, and an appropriate decision was to be taken within an outer limit of three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus – Land records – Petitioners, holders of grant certificates (Annexures-F and G series), sought consideration of their representations dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure-H series). The High Court of Karnataka (E.S. Indiresh, J.) directed respondent No. 3, the Thasildar, Hosakote Taluk, to consider the representations in accordance with law after verifying the original records available in his office and to take an appropriate decision within an outer limit of three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30995 WP No. 16878 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.16878 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M. GOVINDAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O APPASANDRA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

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

SMT. M. MAMATHA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O APPASANDRA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O APPASANDRA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR BHAT A., ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30995 WP No. 16878 of 2026

HC-KAR

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT CHAPPARADAKALLU DEVANAHALLI POST-562110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

THE THASILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE - 562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.05.2026 AS VIDE ANNX-H, H1 AND H2.A-

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30995 WP No. 16878 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The learned Additional Government Advocate

accepts notice for the respondents.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

In this writ petition, the petitioners have

sought for writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the representation produced at Annexure- H series.

Having taken note of the submissions made

by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is noticed that the petitioners have produced the grant certificates at Annexures–F and G series.

In that view of the matter, respondent No. 3

is directed to consider the representations produced at Annexure–H series submitted by the petitioners, in

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30995 WP No. 16878 of 2026

HC-KAR

accordance with law, after verifying the original records available in its office, and take an appropriate decision in the matter within an outer limit of three

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 15.05.2026 produced at Annexure-H series.¶34
The court held
Respondent No. 3 (Thasildar, Hosakote Taluk) was directed to consider the representations produced at Annexure-H series submitted by the petitioners.ratio¶38

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227¶23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioners had submitted representations dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure-H, H1 and H2.A- series) to the respondents, which remained unconsidered; the writ petition seeks a mandamus to consider them.¶23
Prior proceeding
Petitioners produced grant certificates at Annexures-F and G series in support of their claim.¶36

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
M. Govindappa s/o Muniyappa¶9
Vijaya Kumar Bhat A.
petitioner
M. Mamatha w/o Narayanaswamy¶11
Vijaya Kumar Bhat A.
petitioner
K. Ramachandra s/o late Kempanna¶12
Vijaya Kumar Bhat A.
respondent
The State of Karnataka, represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001¶18
Spoorthy Hegde N.
respondent
The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District¶19
Spoorthy Hegde N.
respondent
The Thasildar, Hosakote Taluk¶20
Spoorthy Hegde N.

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indireshauthor¶24

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 23 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 6 Jun 2026
Case no.: WP/16878/2026
CNR: KAHC010376122026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: E.s.indiresh
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Writ Petition (KLR-RES)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from E.s.indiresh

Sri. Mahadevappa Vs the State of Karnataka
22 Jun 2026
Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka
22 Jun 2026
Sri. Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner
22 Jun 2026
Sri Basheer Ulla Khan Vs the Deputy Commissioner
23 Jun 2026
Chinnavenkatamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner
23 Jun 2026
Sri. Balaji Raju Vs State of Karnataka
23 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri.M.Govindappa v. the State of Karnataka, WP/16878/2026 (KA), decided on 23 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Petitioners had submitted representations dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure-H, H1 and H2.A- series) to the respondents, which remained unconsidered; the writ petition seeks a mandamus to consider them.
Petitioners produced grant certificates at Annexures-F and G series in support of their claim.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh

Parties & counsel