Disposed

Sri L G Ramesh v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/38518/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar to rectify revenue records. The Court ordered the assignment of a new survey number to land granted to the petitioner's father and the legal titles entered in the names of his heirs before reserving the remaining extent for a graveyard.

What did the court decide?

Order that the learned authorities ensure revenue records are rectified, the original grantee is assigned new Survey No.248 for 20 guntas, and legal heirs of the late grantee are entered in the record

Sri L G Ramesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9363 WP No. 38518 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 38518 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI L G RAMESH S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶10

OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/AT LAKKAPPANAHALLI KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT 562159

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT RAMANAGARA 562 159.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT 562 159.

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT 562 159.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.SESHU.V., HCGP)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:9363 WP No. 38518 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.RAJIKA/LND/CR-288/09-10 DATED 01.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.28/2023 DATED 27.11.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is directed towards

¶29

the impugned Official Memorandum dated 01.01.2010 at Annexure ‘J’ issued by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, reserving 1 acre 05 guntas in Sy. No.14 of Bannikuppe Village, Kylancha Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, for the purpose of a graveyard.

¶30

It is the contention of the petitioner that his father

¶31

late Sri Giriyappa was granted 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.14 of Bannikuppe Village, but the revenue records have not been maintained in his name. In this regard,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:9363 WP No. 38518 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

when the petitioner’s father approached the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-Division, the Assistant Commissioner, after verifying the records made a communication to the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure ‘A’ dated 11.05.1956 where the Assistant Commissioner has clearly stated that the Amildar, Ramanagara Taluk in his report No.K.D.71/54-55 dated 17.02.1956 has stated that an extent of 20 guntas of land in Survey No.14 of Bannikuppe Village, may be disposed of for cultivation reserving an extent of 25 guntas for katte and the 20 guntas may be granted to Sri V.Giriyappa, the baaju landholder, as the said extent of land is not needed for any public purpose.

¶36

This Court on the previous occasion had directed the learned HCGP that having regard to the findings of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order that what was granted to Sri. V. Giriyappa is only 20 guntas in Sy.No.14 which was phoded and renumbered as Sy.No.248 and the same is distinct from the lands now

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9363 WP No. 38518 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

sought to be reserved for graveyard, the learned High Court Government Pleader was directed to furnish the copies of the RTC made in the name of Sri. V. Giriyappa and his legal heirs and a copy of the sketch showing the demarcation of the two properties.

¶40

Today the Learned High Court Government Pleader has filed a memo along with certain documents and submits that it is true that in the karda, it is clearly mentioned that 20 guntas of land which were granted in favour of Sri V.Giriyappa was assigned new No.248. However the RTCs have not been carried out in the name of Sri V.Giriyappa. Therefore the Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, has made a communication to the learned High Court Government Pleader that it is true that 20 guntas of land were granted in favour of Sri V.Giriyappa and the same was re-numbered as Sy.No.248.

¶41

In that view of the matter, it is stated that what

¶42

can be reserved for graveyard will be only 25 guntas and necessary action will be taken to record an extent of 20

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:9363 WP No. 38518 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

guntas in favour of the legal heirs of late Sri Giriyappa while assigning a new No.248 to the lands that were earlier granted to Sri Giriyappa.

¶47

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk and the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, to ensure that the revenue records are rectified accordingly, assigning new No.248 to an extent of 20 guntas in favour of the original grantee Sri V.Giriyappa and thereafter identify the legal heirs of late Sri Giriyappa and enter their names in respect of 20 guntas in the revenue records. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

¶48

a copy of this order.

¶49

Ordered accordingly.

¶50

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

CT: JL

Sri L G Ramesh v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri L G Ramesh v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H N Baratheesh Vs the Special Assistant Commissioner

Sri Manjegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Devamathe, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Ramakrishnappa S Vs the Joint Director of Land Records