Disposed¶34

Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2026WP/17447/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khatha / pavathi khatha mutation; land records; Thasildhar Chintamani; Assistant Director of Land Records; Chikkaballapura; Survey No.83 Madaballi village; decree O.S. No.113/2004; mandamus under Articles 226 and 227; time-bound consideration of representation (two weeks to file, three months to consider); writ petition disposed of; NC: 2026:KHC:28892.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 within two weeks; respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to consider such representation within three months of receipt. ¶34

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28892 WP No. 17447 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. 17447 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VENKATESHAPPA SON OF MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADBAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK-563125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. JAGADISH K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶14

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

¶15

M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

THE THASILDHAR, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHINTHAMANI-563125 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶17

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, SURVEY DEPARTMENT, TALUK OFFICE, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHINTHAMANI-563125 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:28892 WP No. 17447 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS PARTICULARLY AND IN GENERAL TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER ANNEXUREA DATED 24.09.2021, ANNEXURE-G DATED 29.05.2023 FOR EFFECTING KHATHA IN HIS FATHER'S NAME SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA AND THEN THE PAVATHI KATHA IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION ON THE STRENGTH OF THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S NO.113/2004 DATED 02.09.2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTAMANI FOR EFFECTING PAVATHIKATHA VARS KHATHA WITH RESPECT TO LAND BEING SURVEY NO.83 MEASURING 2 ACRES 2 GUNTAS TOWARDS EASTERN SIDE OF MADABALLI VILLAGE KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents.

¶28

In this petition, petitioner has sought for a direction

¶29

to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 24.09.2021 (Annexure-A).

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28892 WP No. 17447 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶33

since the representation mentioned at Annexure-A is of the year 2021, I am of the view that, it is open for the petitioner to file one more representation seeking similar relief from the respondent Nos.2 and 3. If such a representation is made by the petitioner to respondent Nos.2 and 3 within two weeks from the receipt of this order, same shall be considered by respondent Nos.2 and 3 within three months from the receipt of such representation that may be made by the petitioner as stated above.

¶34

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶36

VBS

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkateshappa 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

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