M/S Shashank Infra Project Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8106 WP No. 2705 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 2705 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S SHASHANK INFRA PROJECT NO.70, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, BHEL LAYOUT, CHIKKABETTAHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU 560 097. REGD. UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 REP. BY ITS PARTNER M. RAMESH S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYAN.

¶9

M.RAMESH, S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT.M.REENA W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶12

PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.52 2ND MAIN, B.H.E.L. LAYOUT, CHIKKABETTAHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU -560 097.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8106 WP No. 2705 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, K.R.CIRCLE, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN BANGALORE 560 001.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560 024.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R3 TO EFFECT THE REVENUE ENTRIES BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02/12/2025 MADE BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent

¶29

No.3-Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk has not entered the name of the petitioners in the revenue records pursuant to

¶30

the registered sale deed dated 15.03.2023. Learned

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8106 WP No. 2705 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

counsel submits that this Court has held, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 127 and 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 the purchasers under registered sale deeds need not even file an application seeking mutation entry of their names in the revenue

¶34

records, since the purchasers would have paid the requisite fee to enable the Sub-Registrar to generate a ‘J’ slip which shall be forwarded to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar is required to enter the name of the purchasers

¶35

in the revenue records. However the petitioners have given a representation at Annexure-E dated 02.12.2025 following the earlier applications given in the year 2023 itself, yet, respondent No.3 - Tahsildar has not passed any orders mutating and entering the name of the petitioners in the revenue records.

¶36

This Court is being flooded with such writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildars to enter the name of the purchasers in the revenue records. These are completely unnecessary

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:8106 WP No. 2705 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

litigation which are brought before this Court. If the Tahsildars do their duty in terms of the law and the directions issued by this Court, there is no need for the purchasers who have acquired title to come before this Court seeking directions to the Tahsildars.

¶41

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk to proceed to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records pursuant to the registered sale deed. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

This Court has passed an order in W.P.No.2720/2026 dated 10.02.2026, having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Sakaala Services Act, 2011 and costs of Rs.500/- is levied on the respondentTahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, payable to the petitioners since the Tahsildar has failed to provide guarantee of services to the petitioners therein within the

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8106 WP No. 2705 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

stipulated time limit in terms of the provisions of Act, 2011. Accordingly, costs of Rs.500/- is levied on the respondent-Tahsildar, in the present case also. The costs shall be paid along with the copy of the order that would be furnished by the respondent-Tahsildar to the

¶46

petitioners.

¶47

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶48

GPG

M/S Shashank Infra Project v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shashank Infra Project 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H R Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Narasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

P Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Antony Kolencherry Vs State of Karnataka

Krishnappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner