Sri Sanjeev Rao Vs the Principal Secretary

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM 4^TH RESPONDENT IN SAM.B.GRA.PAN./ SWATHU/2025-2026 DATED 20.06.2025 AFTER PERUSAL AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED “ENDORSEMENT” ISSUED BY 4^TH RESPONDENT IN SAM.B.GRA.PAN./SWATHU/2025-2026 DATED 20.06.2025 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, BY ALLOWING WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

¶28

a. Call for entire records from 4^th respondent in SAM.B.GRA.PAN./SWATHU/2025-2026 dated 20.06.2025 after perusal,

¶29

b. Issue “WRIT OF CERTIORARI” by quashing the impugned “ENDORSEMENT” issued by 4^th respondent in SAM.B.GRA.PAN./SWATHU/20252026 dated 20.06.2025 Marked as Annexure-A, by allowing Writ Petition as prayed for.

¶30

c. To issue such other writ or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the writ petition, in the ends of justice and equity.

¶31

The property bearing Kaneshmari No.74/108 was earlier belonging to one Smt.Lakshmamma W/o late Narasimaiah of Kuppe Mala Village, Bittasandra

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:7651 WP No. 31578 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Gram Panchayath. The said Smt.Lakshmamma along with her two daughters viz., Smt.Gangamma and Smt.Sarojamma sold the said property in favour Sri.Siddaraju S/o late Siddalingaiah under a registered sale deed dated 20.11.2007.

¶36

The said Sri.Siddarju in turn sold the same property to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 14.08.2008. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has been making payment of taxes and tax paid receipts have been produced.

¶37

The grievance of the petitioner is that on the petitioner having approached respondent No.4 to issue e-Katha in the name of the petitioner, an endorsement has been issued at Annexure-A stating that since the katha still stands in the name of Smt.Lakshmamma and not been transferred in the name of Sri.Siddaraju, the e-Katha cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner. It is challenging the

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:7651 WP No. 31578 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

same, that the petitioner is before this the Court

¶42

seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶43

The submission of Sri.Vinay.S.N., learned counsel for the petitioner is that;

¶44

5.1. All the sales having occurred by way of registered sale deeds, the petitioner has been continuously paying taxes from the year 2008 till date. The petitioner being in possession of the property, merely because the vendor of the petitioner had not obtained a khatha in his name, cannot be a ground for denial of e-khatha to the petitioner.

¶45

5.2. He underscores the point that sales have occurred by way of registered documents and that there is no other claimant to the said property.

¶46

5.3. His submission is that there cannot be a denial

¶47

of e-khatha when there is no other claimant and, as such, he submits that the endorsement

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:7651 WP No. 31578 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

which has been issued is completely malafide and not sustainable.

¶52

Sri.M.S.Devaraju., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 would once again reiterate the stand of respondent No.4 that since katha has not been transferred in the name of Sri.Siddaraju, it cannot be transferred in the name of the petitioner jumping the earlier purchase of the property.

¶53

Heard Sri.Vinay.S.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Boppanna Belliyappa., learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.M.S.Devaraju., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4. Perused papers.

¶54

A perusal of the papers would indicate that Smt.Lakshmamma sold the property to Sri.Siddaraju on 20.11.2007 under a registered sale deed who in turn sold it to the petitioner on 14.08.2008 again under a registered sale deed. The petitioner has been in possession of the subject property from

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:7651 WP No. 31578 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

14.08.2008 till date and has been making payment

¶59

of the due taxes in relation thereto.

¶60

It is also not in dispute that there is no other person who has made rival claims as regards the said property and it is the petitioner who has been in undisturbed possession from the year 2008. The only ground on which the endorsement has been issued is that the property still stands in the name of Smt.Lakshmamma in the Revenue Records and has not been transferred in name of Sri.Siddaraju, so as to affect a transfer in the name of the petitioner.

¶61

The revenue records are not matters of title but are only for the purpose of collection of taxes, it is the registered sale deed which would transfer title in respect of the concerned person.

¶62

In the present matter a registered sale deed having been executed on 20.11.2007 by Smt.Lakshmamma and her two daughters, viz., Smt.Gangamma and Smt.Sarojamma in favour of Sri.Siddaraju, is not in dispute. The registered sale deed executed by

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:7651 WP No. 31578 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Sri.Siddaraju in favour of the petitioner on 14.08.2008 is also not dispute. Hence, the question of denying a katha on the basis of the earlier katha not being transferred in the name of Sri.Siddaraju, in my considered opinion is not sustainable either in law or facts. As such, I pass the following;

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶69

ii. A certiorari is issued, an endorsement bearing No. SAM.B.GRA.PAN./SWATHU/2025-2026 dated 20.06.2025 issued by respondent No.4 at Annexure-A is quashed.

¶70

iii. Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner issues of e-katha in accordance with law by following the necessary procedure within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶71

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶72

SR

¶73

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 37

Sri Sanjeev Rao v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sanjeev Rao v. the Principal Secretary

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. Putta Ningamma Vs the Commissioner

Arun Kumar K S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Malepati Vasu Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy K Vs the State of Karnataka

G B Jagadeesh Vs the Chief Officer

Smt Shanthamma G Vs the Chief Election Commissioner