Disposed¶35

Sri.Mallikarjuna.S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/20909/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTC entry; computerised RTC; Annexure-K representation dated 4.5.2026; Tahsildar Bengaluru East Taluk; mandamus under Articles 226 and 227; direction to consider representation within three months; verify original records; writ petition disposed; Karnataka revenue records (KLR-RES); WP No. 20909 of 2026; Justice E.S. Indiresh; AGA B.P. Radha.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the representation at Annexure-K after verifying the original records and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶35

Sri.Mallikarjuna.S Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35366 WP No. 20909 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 20909 OF 2026(KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.MALLIKARJUNA.S S/O LATE. SRIKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/AT NO.81, SAMUDHAYABHAVANA ROAD, KATAM NALLURU VILLAGE, VIRGONAGARA POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. BENGALURU- 560049.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. P DHANANJAYA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A

¶14

Location: HIGH

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

COURT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING,. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR

¶18

BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K R PURAM, BANGALORE-560036

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:35366 WP No. 20909 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT, BY WAY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN COMPUTARISED RTC 2) TO ISSUE A WRIT FO MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE K, DTD 4.5.2026.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE COMPURARTISED RTC. FORTHWITH, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation produced at Annexure-K has not been considered by the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the said representation.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:35366 WP No. 20909 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

In the circumstances, the respondents are directed

¶34

to consider the representation at Annexure-K, after verifying the original records available in their office, and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶36

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶37

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri.Mallikarjuna.S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Mallikarjuna.S 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

Sri B.R. Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshminarayanamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Saraswathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. T.M. Ramakrishnappa, Vs State of Karnataka

Gangadharappa Vs the State of Karnataka