Dismissed¶56

Sri Bhogaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC30 Jun 2026WP/35242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; revenue records khata/RTC entry effected pursuant to registered Sale Deed dated 26.12.2007; question of title not adjudicable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226; petitioner's grant order confirmed 04.04.2007 (Annexure-H) versus private respondents' sale deed; Tahsildar Gubbi Taluk order 16.07.2008 (Annexure-P, RRT(DIS)CR05/08-09); Assistant Commissioner order 16.12.2020 (Annexure-X); Deputy Commissioner order 28.08.2024 (Annexure-Z); Sy. No. 28 / Sy. No. 129 Ammanahalli Village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur; LRs of deceased B.V. Siddalingaswamy impleaded as Respondents 4-8; liberty to establish title before competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

No relief; petitioner left free to establish his right, title and interest over the land before the competent civil court or appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Sri Bhogaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; petitioner left free to establish his right, title and interest over the land before the competent civil court or appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's challenge to the revenue orders (Annexure-P dated 16.07.2008, Annexure-X dated 16.12.2020 and Annexure-Z dated 28.08.2024) and his claim to a direction for entry of his name in the revenue records should be acceded to, given that the entries were effected pursuant to a registered Sale Deed dated 26.12.2007 in favour of the private respondents. +2 more

¶53

Court's answer

No interference is called for in the present writ petition, as the entries in the revenue records have been effected pursuant to a registered Sale Deed.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The question of title cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶53

Key takeaways

It is open to the petitioner to establish his right, title, and interest over the land in question before the competent civil court or before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (single Judge, E.S. Indiresh J.), Oral Order dated 30 June 2026 in W.P. No. 35242 of 2024 (KLR-RES): Dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Tahsildar's order dated 16.07.2008 (Annexure-P, RRT(DIS)CR05/08-09) recording Siddalingaswamy's name in khata and RTC for the land in Ammanahalli Village, together with the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-X) and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure-Z), and a direction to enter the petitioner's name in the revenue records. The petitioner claimed title under a grant order confirmed on 04.04.2007 (Annexure-H); the private respondents — mother, wife and children (LRs) of the deceased B.V. Siddalingaswamy — relied on a registered Sale Deed dated 26.12.2007, pursuant to which the revenue entries had been effected. Held: no interference is called for where revenue entries rest on a registered Sale Deed, and the question of title cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction; the petitioner was left open to establish his right, title and interest before the competent civil court or appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32461 WP No. 35242 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.35242 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. BHOGAIAH S/O LATE NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT BANDIHALLI VILLAGE NITTUR POST AND HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 572223.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K.R. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR -572101.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR -572101.

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR -572216.

¶18

H.R. SHANTHA D/O RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT BANDI HALLI VILLAGE,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:32461 WP No. 35242 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR-572223.

¶23

MAHADEVAMMA W/O VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT BANDIHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR-572223.

¶24

ANITHA W/O B.V. SIDDALINGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT BANDIHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR-572223.

¶25

RUDRESH

¶26

S/O B.V. SIDDALINGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT BANDIHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR - 572 223.

¶27

BRUDANA

¶28

D/O B.V. SIDDALINGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT BANDIHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR - 572 223.

¶29

NOTE:

¶30

WHO ARE MOTHER WIFE AND CHILDREN LRS. OF B V SIDDALINGASWAMY WHO WAS PARTY BEFOERE R1 TO R3 SINCE DIED ON 11-09-2024 I E , SUBSEQUENT TO ANENXUE Z ARE MADE AS PARTIES IN THE PETITION.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:32461 WP No. 35242 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. KIRAN KUMAR H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8; R4 SERVED)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-P DATED 16.07.2008 IN THE RRT(DIS)CR05/08-09 PASSED BY THE OFFICE OF THIRD RESPONDENT/TAHSILDAR GUBBI TALUK GUBBI ORDERING TO RECORD THE NAME OF THE SIDDALINGASWANY IN KHATAHA AND RTC IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY NO.129 OF THE AMMANAHALLI VILLAGE; 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

ORAL ORDER

¶40

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has

¶41

assailed the order dated 16.07.2008 passed by Respondent No.3 (Annexure-P), the order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-X) passed by Respondent No. 2, and the order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure-Z) passed by Respondent No. 1. The petitioner has, interalia, sought a direction to the respondents to enter his

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:32461 WP No. 35242 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

name in the revenue records in respect of the land in

¶46

question.

¶47

I have heard Sri. K.R. Nagaraja, learned

¶48

counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde .N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Kiran Kumar H.S., learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is noticed that the petitioner claims title over the property on the basis of the grant order produced at Annexure-H, whereby the grant made in his favour in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 28 of Ammanahalli Village, Tumakuru Taluk, was confirmed by order dated 04.04.2007. On the other hand, the private respondents claim title over the very same property on the strength of a registered Sale Deed dated 26.12.2007.

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32461 WP No. 35242 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

4. In that view of the matter, I am of the

¶53

opinion that no interference is called for in the present writ petition, as the entries in the revenue records have been effected pursuant to a registered Sale Deed. The question of title cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶54

However, it is open to the petitioner to

¶55

establish his right, title, and interest over the land in question before the competent civil court or before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

¶56

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶57

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶58

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Sri Bhogaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bhogaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

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 Pramila P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K M Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Hemavathi M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Bhagya Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. D.K Balakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangamma Vs K Basavaraja