Dismissed¶52

Smt. Sabith Venugopal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/30073/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court; writ petition dismissed; alternative remedy; Section 136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964; M.R. entry M.R.No.H48/2016-17; Annexure-V; mutation/revenue records; Special Tahsildar Bengaluru South Taluk; Articles 226 and 227; liberty reserved; contentions kept open; Bengaluru Urban District.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; all contentions kept open. ¶52

Smt. Sabith Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33270 WP No. 30073 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 30073 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SABITH VENUGOPAL W/O. MR. B K VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO. 17/1, SRI. SAMPANGI RAMASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. R. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SREEPADA H.R, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY PRINCPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, D.C. COMPOUND, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶16

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, D.C. COMPOUND,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33270 WP No. 30073 of 2017

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶22

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶23

SRI. N.K. MOHAN RAJ SINCE DECEASED BY HISLR'S

¶24

7(A). SMT. A.R. LAKSHMI W/O LATE N.K. MOHAN RAJ AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶25

7(B). MR. M. VIVEK S/O LATE N.K. MOHAN RAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶26

7(C). MR. M.PREETHI D/O LATE N.K. MOHAN RAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶27

THE RESPONDENT NOS. 7(A) TO (C) ARE R/A NO. 20/1, H.N. LAYOUT

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:33270 WP No. 30073 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶32

SRI. K. PARTHASARATHY S/O LATE KANNAPPA MUDALIAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A NO. 47, 4^TH CROSS SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶33

SRI. B.L. KISHORE S/O B.M. LAKSHMIKANTA R/A NO. 13C-4, THULASI, 4^TH FLOOR KRISHNANAGAR APARTMENT, ANASANDRAPALYA VIMANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. A.I. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R10)

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED M.R. ENTRY IN M.R.NO.H48/2016-17 DATED 26.5.2017 ISSUED BY R-6 VIDE ANNEX-V WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ORDER AND ETC.,

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:33270 WP No. 30073 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶44

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the entry in M.R.No.H48/2016-17 dated 28.04.2017 (Annexure-V) i nter alia sought for a direction to the respondent No.6 to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

¶45

Sri.A.S.Mahesha learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 10 raised preliminary objection that the petitioner has not established his right over the property in question and also submitted that the impugned order is an appealable under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶46

Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as the petitioner has challenged the M.R entries at Annexure-V before this Court, I am of the view that, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 136(2) of the Act, 1964 to establish right over the property in question. In that view of

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:33270 WP No. 30073 of 2017

¶48

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the matter, since the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy

¶51

under the provisions of the aforementioned Act, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this petition.

¶52