Allowed¶34

Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2026WP/18288/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jayamma; Special Tahsildar Bangalore South Taluk; endorsement dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure-B) set aside; family genealogical tree; application dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure-A); reconsideration within one month; Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; WP No. 18288 of 2026 (KLR-RES); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Justice E.S. Indiresh; writ petition allowed; remand to respondent No.2.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure-B) issued by respondent No.2 set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioner's application for issuance of the family genealogical tree within one month from receipt of the order, with liberty to the petitioner to supply further details. ¶34

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure-B) issued by respondent No.2 (Special Tahsildar) should be quashed/set aside and respondent No.2 directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 26.02.2026 for issuance of the family genealogical tree.

¶21

Court's answer

Careful examination of the information submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-C to E-1 indicates that the petitioner has provided all the relevant material to respondent No.2 for issuance of the family genealogical tree.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The endorsement dated 16.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to reconsider the issue after considering the material referred to above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order.

¶27

Key takeaways

It is open to the petitioner to supply all the details to respondent No.2 to enable respondent No.2 to take a decision in the matter, if so required at respondent No.2's instance.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (E.S. Indiresh, J.), Order dated 19 June 2026 in WP No. 18288 of 2026 (KLR-RES): Jayamma, aggrieved by the endorsement dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure-B) issued by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk (respondent No.2), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the endorsement and a direction to consider her application dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure-A) for issuance of the family genealogical tree. Examining the petitioner's submissions at Annexure-C to E-1, the Court found that she had provided all relevant material to respondent No.2. Accordingly, the endorsement was set aside and the matter remitted to respondent No.2 for reconsideration within one month from receipt of the order, with liberty to the petitioner to furnish further details if required. Writ petition allowed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:30274 WP No. 18288 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18288 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JAYAMMA, D/O GUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT 72, KUVEMPU ROAD, BAZAR STREET, KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE KARNATAKA - 560060.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ARVIND N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶13

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 562106.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560009.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560009.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30274 WP No. 18288 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR) DATED 16/03/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure-B) issued by respondent No.2, interalia has sought for direction to respondent No.2 to consider the application dated 26.02.2026 at Annexure-A.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the information submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-C to E-1 would indicate that the petitioner has provided all the relevant material to respondent No.2 for issuance of the family genealogical tree.

¶27

In that view of the matter, the endorsement dated 16.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 is set-aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to reconsider the issue

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30274 WP No. 18288 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

after considering the material referred to above within a period

¶31

of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶32

It is also made clear that, it is open for the petitioner to supply all the details to respondent No.2 to enable them to take decision in the matter, if so relevant at the

¶33

instance of the respondent No.2.

¶34

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶35

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶36

GVP

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayamma v. the 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 Gurramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. G.S. Kristappa Alias Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S.B. Munivenkatappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Tulasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghu. M. E. Vs State of Karnataka