Sri S C Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6470 WP No. 23411 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 23411 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S.C. SRINIVAS S/O LATE CAHNDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT SAKALAVARA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 105.

¶9

SRI. PUTTARAJU S/O LATE HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.225/803, 2^ND FLOOR, 7^TH 'B' CROSS, SASTRYNAGARA, THYAGARAJANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 028.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. ADINARAYANA M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:6470 WP No. 23411 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶20

THE THASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.06.2025 AND 23.06.2025 AT ANNEXURE-J, J1 TO J3; AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioners that their fathers, who were in unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the land, was granted land to an extent of 02 acres 01 gunta and 30 guntas respectively in Sy.No.34 of Hullukasavanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, on 10.05.1978 vide Official

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6470 WP No. 23411 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Memorandum bearing No. LND.SR(1) 93/1974-75 (Annexure-A). Thereafter, their names were entered in the revenue records. However, upon computerisation of the records, the said entries have been removed from the RTC. The petitioners have given representations to the Tahsildar as found at Annexures-J series, seeking entry of their names in the computerised RTC. However, the same have not been considered till date. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondent-Thasildar, Anekal Taluk, to consider the representations given by the petitioners to enter their name in the computerised RTC, who are the legal heirs of the original grantees.

¶31

The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 -Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, to verify from the records and find out if grant was made in favour of the petitioners' father and if the kimath has been paid. If it is found from the records that the facts stated hereinabove are true, then the Tahsildar shall proceed to enter the name of the petitioners' father in the

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:6470 WP No. 23411 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

computerised RTC in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Tahsildar shall issue notice to the legal heirs of the grantees and look into the aspect of the legal heirs of the grantees. Once the Tahsildar has satisfied himself with respect to the legal heirs of Chandrashekarappa and Huchaiah, he shall proceed to enter the names of the petitioners and all other legal heirs as the case may be in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

Ordered accordingly.

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶38

permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶39

SD/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶40

SB:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri S C Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S C Srinivas 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 Bhagyalakshmi Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Smt Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

T Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramachandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.a.S. Lakkegowda Vs State of Karnataka