Petitioner challenged an internal communication rejecting mutation claim. Court held petition not maintainable as communication was not served or marked to petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:26305 WP NO.39123 OF 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.39123 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O LATE K. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 149.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROHIT B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA )
NC: 2026:KHC:26305 WP NO.39123 OF 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR MUTATION OF THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.74, BLOCK NO.1 AND 30 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.74, BLOCK NO.2 OF BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the
Communication dated 15th October, 2025 (Annexure-A) made by the respondent No.4 with the respondent No.3.
NC: 2026:KHC:26305 WP NO.39123 OF 2025
HC-KAR
about, how the petitioner got the impugned communication, though the same has not been served or marked to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHADEO AND OTHERS vs. SOVAN DEVI AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 10 SCC 807, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, Writ petition is dismissed.
SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE
ARK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge an internal communication between respondents that was neither served nor marked to the petitioner.
Whether the Supreme Court judgment in Mahadeo and Others applies to dismiss the petition for non-service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahadeo and Others vs. Sovan Devi and OthersDistinguished¶33
(2023) 10 SCC 807 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O LATE K. THIMMAIAH
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
