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 2ND C MAIN, MES ROAD MUTHYALA NAGARA, BENGALURU -560054.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. G B NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

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

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR SARGUR TALUK SARGUR -571121.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 TO

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9141 WP No. 3593 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CONSIDER LEGAL NOTICE DTD. 20.09.2025 VIDE ANNX-F AND REGISTRATION OF MUTATION WITH RESPECT TO LAND BEARING SY.NO. 612 (OLD SY NO.389/612) MEASURING 2 ACRES 37 GUNTAS, SITAUTED AT SAGARE VILLAGE, KANDALIKE HOBLI, HD KOTE TALUK, NOW SARAGUR TALUK IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for both the respondents.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioners is with the inaction by respondent No.2 – Tahasildar, Sargur Taluk, to mutate and enter the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deed executed dated 23.11.2024.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not disputed that land was originally granted in favour of one Sri.B.S.Ramachandraiah vide order bearing No.LND(4)158/7475 dated 31.10.1974. Subsequently saguvali chit was issued and revenue records were transferred in the name of Sri.B.S.Ramachandraiah and he conveyed the schedule property in favour of Smt.Shreya Anuj Kumar vide registered

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9141 WP No. 3593 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

sale deed dated 01.07.2010 and mututaion was registered in favour of Smt.Shreya Anuj Kumar vide MR No.53/2010-11. The property was thereafter sold to the petitioners herein vide registered sale deed dated 23.11.2024. The petitioners 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 23.11.2024. He further submits that the same has not been considered by the Tahsildar.

¶32

Learned counsel submits that it is the duty of the respondent-Tahasildar to register the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deeds.

¶33

There is sufficient substance in the submission 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 01.07.2010 at the hands of Smt.Shreya Anuj Kumar 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

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:9141 WP No. 3593 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

aside the sale as void, the Tahasildar cannot decline to enter the names of the petitioners in the land records.

¶38

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 - Tahsildar, Sargur Taluk to look into the veracity of the claims of 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 23.11.2024. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

¶39

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶40

permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶41

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶42

GPG

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

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

Ajithkumar a v Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. a. M. Murali Mohan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Ganapathi Silks, Vs Smt. Sandhya Ravindranath

Smt Lakshmidevamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Shivananda H.V. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Frontier Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka