Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI SANDEEP R GATTI S/O SRI G K RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.416, SRI SOMANATHA PRASAD 2^ND C MAIN, MES ROAD MUTHYALA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560054

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. G B NANDISH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR SARGUR TALUK SARGUR - 571 121

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7026 WP No. 3524 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER LEGAL NOTICE DATED 20.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND REGISTRATION OF MUTATION WITH RESPECT TO LAND BEARING SY.NO.611 MEASURING 2 ACRES 22 GUNTAS SITUATED AT SAGARE VILLAGE, KANDALIKE HOBLI, HD KOTE TALUK, NOW SARAGUR TALUK IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for both the respondents.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner is with the inaction by the respondent No.2 – Tahasildar, Sira Taluk, to mutate and enter the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deed executed dated 24.12.2024.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶27

it is not disputed that land was originally granted in favour

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7026 WP No. 3524 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

of one Sri Veeranna S/o Puttappa vide order bearing No.LND(4)158/74-75 dated 31.10.1974. subsequently saguvali chit was issued and revenue records were transferred in the name of Sri Veeranna S/o Puttappa. After his demise the revenue record was transferred in favour of Smt.Nanjamma vide MR No.48/2010-11. Thereafter the petition schedule property was sold in favour of Smt. Shreya Anuj Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 12.01.2011. Mutation entries were effected in her favour vide MR No.85/2010-11. The property was thereafter sold to the petitioners herein vide registered sale deed dated 24.12.2024.

¶31

The Petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent-tahsildar, Sargur Taluk on 20.09.2025 to enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue records on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 24.12.2024. He further submits that the same has not been considered by the Tahsildar.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7026 WP No. 3524 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned counsel submits that it is the duty of

¶35

the respondent-Tahasildar to register the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deeds.

¶36

There is sufficient substance in the submission

¶37

of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Tahasildar is required by law to enter the name of the petitioners on the strength of a registered sale deed. If the Tahasildar is of the opinion that initial sale made on 12.01.2011 at the hands of Smt.Nanjamma was in contravention of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, 1978, then the only legal recourse that is open for the Tahasildar is to initiate proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. Unless and until the competent authority sets aside the sale as void, the Tahasildar cannot decline to enter the names of the petitioners in the land records.

¶38

7. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of

¶39

with a direction to look into the veracity of the claims of

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7026 WP No. 3524 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the petitioners made herein and thereafter proceed to mutate the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 24.12.2024. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months

¶43

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

Ordered accordingly.

¶45

Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶46

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶47

KLY CT: JL

Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty 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. Muddagangamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Renukappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S v Ashwathaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sreya Anuj Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Arunkumar M N Vs the Principal Secretary to

Mr. Dr. Basavaraj P v Vs State of Karnataka