Disposed¶39

Smt Tolachamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2026WP/3869/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, R Devdas J, WP No. 3869 of 2026 (KLR-RES), NC 2026:KHC:7789, disposed 10.02.2026. Mandamus refused: Tahsildar, Alur Taluk cannot be directed to consider representations (Annexures-J and K dated 24.02.2025 and 06.08.2025) regarding grant of land Sy.No.41, Block-VII, 2 acres, Rajanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan District to respondent No.5 Thimmegowda in 1996 and RTC entries; challenger must approach competent authority under law. Themes: Articles 226/227, KLR-RES, revenue records, RTC, land grant 1996, Tahsildar representations, liberty reserved, Tolachamma v. State of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in accordance with law to redress her grievance. ¶39

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in accordance with law to redress her grievance.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing respondent No.4-Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representations dated 24.02.2025 and 06.08.2025 (Annexures-J and K) concerning the grant/revenue entries in favour of respondent No.5.

¶33

Court's answer

A direction to the Tahsildar to consider such representations cannot be issued.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Notice to respondent No.5 was not necessary for deciding the petition.

¶28

Key takeaways

If respondent No.5's name is entered in the revenue records as found at Annexure-G, the petitioner must raise her challenge before the competent authority in a manner known to law; such representations cannot be considered by the Tahsildar.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R Devdas J), Writ Petition No. 3869 of 2026 (KLR-RES) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, disposed of on 10.02.2026. The petitioner, Smt. Tolachamma, sought a mandamus directing respondent No.4-Tahsildar (Alur Taluk) to consider her representations dated 24.02.2025 and 06.08.2025 (Annexures-J and K) concerning lands bearing Sy.No.41, Block-VII, measuring 2 acres at Rajanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Alur Taluk, Hassan District, which she contended were subsequently granted to respondent No.5 (Thimmegowda) in 1996 with the RTC made out in his name, while her own name was also entered in the revenue records. Held: (i) such a direction cannot be issued to the Tahsildar; (ii) if respondent No.5's name is entered in the revenue records as found at Annexure-G, the petitioner must raise her challenge before the competent authority in a manner known to law, as such representations cannot be considered by the Tahsildar. Notice to respondent No.5 was held unnecessary; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in accordance with law to redress her grievance.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:7789 WP No. 3869 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 3869 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. TOLACHAMMA W/O DYAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF RAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDAKANAGALU POST, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.C. SHANTAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 102.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKLESHPURA SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN-573 102.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7789 WP No. 3869 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶19

SRI. THIMMEGOWDA S/O SHAMBEGOWDA, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF RAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: (I) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 FOR CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.02.2025 AND 06.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURES-J AND K AND TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS THEREON; 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

¶27

notice for respondents-1 to 4.

¶28

Notice to respondent No.5 is not necessary for

¶29

the following reasons.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7789 WP No. 3869 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

It is the contention of the petitioner that lands bearing Sy.No.41, Block-VII, measuring 2 acres situated at Rajanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Alur Taluk, Hassan District, appears to have been subsequently granted in favour of respondent No.5 in the year 1996. The RTC is also made out in the name of respondent No.5. Nevertheless, it is also the contention of the petitioner that her name too is entered in the revenue records.

¶33

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4-Tahsildar to consider the representations at Annexures-J and K dated 24.02.2025 and 06.08.2025 given by the petitioner to ensure that there is no interference at the hands of respondent No.5 in the lands in question.

¶34

In the considered opinion of this Court, such a direction cannot be issued to the Tahsildar. If the name of respondent No.5 is entered in the revenue records as found at Annexure-G, then the petitioner will have to raise

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:7789 WP No. 3869 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

her challenge before the competent authority in a manner known to law. Such representations cannot be considered by the Tahsildar.

¶39