Disposed¶53

Smt. Siraj Unnisa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026WP/35335/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (KLR-RR/SUR); quash Tahsildar endorsement; 1947 land grant claim; M.R. No.19/1947-48 genuineness; Annexure-L order dated 14.07.2021; Annexure-W endorsement dated 19.09.2024; RTC extracts; Index of Lands; remittal for fresh reconsideration; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur; three-month completion deadline; petitioner to furnish documents; principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the matter remitted to respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk) for fresh reconsideration of the petitioner's 1947 land-grant claim, examining contemporaneous records including the Index of Lands and deciding in accordance with law within three months; the endorsement itself was not quashed. ¶53

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 19.09.2024 issued by respondent No.4 rejecting the petitioner's claim regarding grant of the subject land on 19.08.1947, contrary to respondent No.4's earlier order dated 14.07.2021 regarding the genuineness of M.R. No.19/1947-48, is wrongly issued and liable to be set aside.

¶37

Court's answer

The original records disclose that the respondent-authorities made entries in M.R. No.19/1947-48 and the name of the petitioner's father-in-law is found in the original records relating thereto.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The rejection of the petitioner's claim solely on the ground that there is no grant order is not justified on the part of respondent No.4; accordingly, the matter requires to be remitted to respondent No.4 for reconsideration.

¶46

Key takeaways

Respondent No.4 shall re-examine the issue afresh by looking into the contemporaneous records, including the Index of Lands and such other relevant documents pertaining to the grant alleged to have been made in favour of the petitioner's father-in-law, and thereafter take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.ratio¶46
The re-examination exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.ratio¶48
It is open to the petitioner to furnish any relevant documents before respondent No.4 for consideration while a decision is taken in the matter.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (single bench, E.S. Indiresh J.), Writ Petition No.35335 of 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR), disposed on 16.06.2026 - Petitioner sought quashing of the endorsement No.R.R.T:CR: 1073/2020-21,430/2024-25 dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure-W) issued by the Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk (respondent No.4), rejecting her claim regarding grant of the subject land on 19.08.1947 to her father-in-law, notwithstanding the same officer's earlier order dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure-L) arriving at a conclusion on the genuineness of M.R. No.19/1947-48. Perusing the original records, the Court found entries in M.R. No.19/1947-48 naming the petitioner's father-in-law and RTC extracts standing in his name, held that rejection of the claim solely on the ground that there is no grant order was not justified, and remitted the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh reconsideration against contemporaneous records including the Index of Lands, with a decision to be taken in accordance with law within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order; the petitioner was left free to furnish relevant documents. The endorsement was not quashed; the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29426 WP No. 35335 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.35335 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SIRAJ UNNISA

¶10

W/O LATE BASHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT MAGADIPALYA YADIYURU HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK

¶11

TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572130.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. NAIK NARAYAN MASTAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY

¶17

Digitally signed by PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CHAYA S A

¶18

Location: HIGH REVENUE DEPARTMENT COURT OF KARNATAKA MS BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKURU TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572101.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKURU SUB DIVISION TUMKURU - 572101.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:29426 WP No. 35335 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572130.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA )

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.R.R.T:CR: 1073/2020-21,430/2024-25 DATED 19.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-W, AS THE SAME IS ISSUED ARBITRARILY BY VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EARLIER REPORTS OF THE RESPONDENT NO- 4 DATED 14.07.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L; AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Heard Sri. Naik Narayan mastappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29426 WP No. 35335 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

In this writ petition, the petitioner is

¶35

assailing the Endorsement dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure-W) issued by respondent No.4, whereby the claim of the petitioner regarding the grant of the subject land on 19.08.1947 has been rejected.

¶36

Sri. Naik Narayan Mastappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited the attention of the Court to the earlier order dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.4, wherein respondent No.4 had arrived at a conclusion regarding the genuineness of M.R. No.19/1947-48. In that view of the matter,

¶37

the very same respondent No.4, by issuing the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-W, has wrongly arrived at a contrary conclusion, which is liable to be set aside.

¶38

Per contra, Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29426 WP No. 35335 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

respondent-State submitted that there are no original records pertaining to the grant of land in favour of the petitioner's father-in-law on 19.08.1947 available in the office of respondent No.4 and, therefore, sought dismissal of the writ petition.

¶42

In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the original records produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The records disclose that the respondent-authorities have made entries in M.R. No.19/1947-48, and the name of the petitioner's father-in-law is found in the original records relating thereto. It is also to be noted that the RTC extracts stand in the name of the petitioner's father-in-law.

¶43

In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the claim solely on the

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29426 WP No. 35335 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

ground that there is no grant order is not justified on the part of respondent No.4. Accordingly, the matter requires to be remitted to respondent No.4 for reconsideration. Respondent No.4 shall re-examine the issue afresh by looking into the contemporaneous records, including the Index of Lands and such other relevant documents pertaining to the grant alleged to have been made in favour of the petitioner's father-inlaw, and thereafter, take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶47

It is made clear that, the said exercise shall

¶48

be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also open to the petitioner to furnish any relevant documents before respondent No.4 for consideration while taking a decision in the matter.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:29426 WP No. 35335 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

With this observation, the writ petition stands

¶53

disposed of .

¶54

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶55