Disposed

Smt Mahadevamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2026WP/29818/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought consideration of their representation for entering their names in revenue records relating to a grant made to their grandfather. The court disposed of the petition reserving liberty to file a representation to the Tahsildar, who must respond in law within two months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to give representation to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar; Tahsildar directed to consider it in accordance with law within two months.

Smt Mahadevamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:10594 WP No. 29818 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.29818 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS D/O LATE. SIDDAPPA

¶7

SMT.NINGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O LATE MADAPPA,

¶8

SMT.REVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D/O LATE MADAPPA,

¶9

SMT. SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE MADAPPA,

¶10

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT.SUNANDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE MADAPPA,

¶12

SMT. GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O LATE MADAPPA,

¶13

SRI.MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE MADAPPA,

¶14

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 7 ARE REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.8 SRI M MANJU

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10594 WP No. 29818 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SRI M MANJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE MADAPPA,

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT CHORANAHALLI, VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK- 570 010

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DC OFFICE COMPLEX MYSURU-570 001

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU DIVISION MYSURU-570 001

¶25

THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK MYSURU-570 005

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10594 WP No. 29818 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.06.2025 AS PER THE ANNEXUREA AND ETC.,

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the

¶34

respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶36

few of the relatives of the petitioners have already filed W.P.No.29924/2025 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 07.01.2026 reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a representation or application before the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, Mysore Taluk, to enter their names in the revenue records and the Tahsildar was directed to consider the representation that could be given by the petitioners. Hence, the learned counsel prays for the similar relief.

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10594 WP No. 29818 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

However, learned HCGP submits that on

¶40

the information made available along with the writ petition, it is clear that the grant was said to have been made in favour of Sri Siddaiah the petitioner’s grandfather in the year 1942. Therefore, when the grant is said to be made in favour of the original grantee and his name is not entered in the revenue records, the names of the petitioners cannot be entered in the revenue records.

¶41

Be that as it may, since the grievance of the petitioners’ relatives have been considered in another writ petition while reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to give representation, similar relief is required to be given to the petitioners in this writ petition.

¶42

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to give representation to 4^th respondent-Tahsildar and to continue the name of the petitioners’ grandfather Sri Siddaiah in the revenue records and thereafter, consider entering the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:10594 WP No. 29818 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

name of the legal heirs of the original grantee in the revenue records.

¶47

However, the Tahsildar shall consider the

¶48

representation of the petitioners in accordance with law and issue necessary endorsement, if the name of the original grantee or legal heirs of the original grantee could be continued in the revenue records and it shall be done 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.

¶49

Ordered accordingly.

¶50

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Smt Mahadevamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mahadevamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sreya Anuj Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Annadanaiah Vs the Karnataka Government

Sri. L Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka

G M Siddappa Vs the District Commissioner

K R Bojegowda Vs Deputy Commissioner