Disposed¶43

Kumarachar H P v. Tahasildar

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2026WP/36696/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata change; re-entry of names in revenue records; land acquisition proceedings dropped (notification dated 31.06.2016 as printed; lands notified 2012-13); Tahsildar Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District; Article 226 mandamus/direction; Annexure-D representations dated 16.09.2025; parity with Annexure-C series orders; two-month compliance timeline; High Court of Karnataka, R Devdas J.; NC: 2026:KHC:9170; WP No. 36696 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent-Tahsildar, Holenarasipura Taluk to take up the petitioners' applications (Annexure-D series) and pass necessary orders as done for other applicants (Annexure-C series), expeditiously and at any rate within two months from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶43

Kumarachar H P Vs Tahasildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9170 WP No. 36696 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 36696 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KUMARACHAR H P S/O LATE PUTTACHAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HALLI MYSORE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASAN DISTRICT 573210

¶9

MOHAN KUMAR IS, S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, ICHANAHALLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASAN DISTRICT 573211

¶10

IE SWAMY

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

S/O ERAPPA,

¶13

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ICHANAHALLI,

¶14

HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASAN DISTRICT 573211

¶15

HEMANTHKUMAR JS S/O SHIVANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 EYARS, JAKANAHALLI, HALLI MYSORE HOBALI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASAN DISTRICT 573210

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9170 WP No. 36696 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MANJUNATHA JS

¶19

S/O SURESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, JAKANAHALLI, HALLI MYSORE HOBALI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASAN DISTRICT 573210

¶20

SMT SUDHA W/O YOGESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MANGALAPURA, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASAN DISTRICT 573211

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

TAHASILDAR HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HOLENARASIPURA, HASAN DISTRICT-573211

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-D1 TO D5 DTD 16.09.2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CHANGE THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS/ RESPECTIVE PURCHASERS AS PER THE SALE DEEDS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A1 TO A6.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:9170 WP No. 36696 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶32

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

¶36

The grievance of the petitioners is that their applications filed at Annexure-D series for re-entering their names in the revenue records pursuant to the dropping of the acquisition proceedings has not been considered by the respondent-Tahsildar and no orders have been passed till date, although the applications were filed in the month of September 2025.

¶37

Learned counsel points out to similar orders passed by the Tahsildar at Annexure - C series, where the Tahsildar has considered such contention that although the lands were notified for acquisition in the year 2012-13, nevertheless by virtue of a subsequent notification bearing

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:9170 WP No. 36696 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

No.PÀA E ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¼À 2014 dated 31.06.2016, the acquisition

¶42

proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, the names of the applicants have been entered in the revenue records.

¶43

Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent - Tahsildar, Holenarasipura Taluk to take up the applications filed by the petitioners and pass necessary orders as has been done in the case of the other applicants as found at Annexure-C series, and pass necessary orders 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.

¶44

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶45

KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Kumarachar H P v. Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumarachar H P v. Tahasildar

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

Sri Markondappa Vs Sri R Munikrishnappa

Sri. Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Savitha Ragavendra Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. G. R. Onkarappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka