Disposed

Smt. Sarojamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026WP/39553/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special leave petitioner sought directions via writ petition under Article 226 for mutation entry of her name in revenue records after her husband's death and exoneration by Special Court from encroachment claims, ordering Tahsildar to complete mutation within three months. High Court of Karnataka disposed of the petition with a direction to the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

Specific direction to the Tahsildar to consider representations and enter the petitioner's (or all legal heirs') name in revenue records within three months.

Smt. Sarojamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3320 WP No. 39553 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 39553 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O B.N. NARASIMHA REDDY D/O ASHWATHAPPA R/AT BHOGAPARTHI, MANDIKALLU, CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶15

THE TASHILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, GUDIBANDE TALUK.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.11.2025 VIDE ANNX-J WITHIN THE TIME FIXED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:3320 WP No. 39553 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for both the respondents.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent – Tahsildar, Gudibande Taluk, has failed to consider the representation/applications filed by the petitioner seeking mutation entry in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner's husband firstly and thereafter

¶27

to be transferred in the name of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that her husband was granted 2 acres and 26 guntas of land in Survey No.37 of Bogapatti Village, Mandikallu Hobli, in terms of Order bearing No. LND SR 29/16-12-2003 and accordingly saguvali chit was also issued on 08.01.2004 as seen at Annexure - A. However, the name of the petitioner's husband was not entered in the revenue records. Earlier, when the petitioner filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking to enter her name on the ground that

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3320 WP No. 39553 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

her husband is no more, the Tahsildar issued an endorsement at Annexure-D dated 29.02.2020 stating that although it is found that saguvali chit was issued in favour of petitioner's husband, in terms of Order bearing No.RUO SR(M) 323/1991-92, nevertheless, since a case is pending consideration before the Special Court for land grabbing at Bengaluru, the petitioner will have to await the outcome of the said proceedings.

¶31

Learned counsel points out to Annexure-E, which is the order passed by the Special Court in proceedings bearing No.LGC(p) No.1547/2018, where, by order dated 25.08.2021, the Special Court has held that in terms of the report furnished on 21.03.2019, the allegations made against the petitioner is found to be incorrect. The petitioner has not encroached upon any lands that does not belong to the petitioner. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the Tahsildar was duty bound to consider the applications filed by the

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3320 WP No. 39553 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

petitioner at Annexure-J pursuant to the orders passed by the Special Court for land grabbing.

¶35

Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the 2^nd respondent – Tahsildar, Gudibande Taluk, to consider the representations given by the petitioner and proceed to enter the name of the petitioner, if it is found that the petitioner is the only legal heir left behind by late Sri B.N.Narasimha Reddy, who is the grantee. On the other hand, if there are other legal heirs left behind by the grantee, the names of all the legal heirs shall be entered jointly. 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 a copy of this order.

¶36

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶37

KLY: CT: JL

Smt. Sarojamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarojamma v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sulochanamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Yellamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Prashantha S.A. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Giriyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B.H. Shivananda, Vs State of Karnataka