J. Ramesh Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

J. Ramesh Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a specific direction to Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to enter the petitioners' names in the revenue records in terms of the registered final decree as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs imposed; the Additional Government Advocate permitted to file a memo of appearance within four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent revenue authorities, particularly Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, failed to act upon the petitioners' representations (Annexures E to G) to enter the petitioners' names in the revenue records in terms of the registered final decree in O.S. No. 549/2020.

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to proceed to enter the name of the petitioners in terms of the registered final decree.

Ratio / Principle

The direction is to be carried out as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Key takeaways

The Court observed that it would normally have imposed costs on Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar for not taking steps to enter the petitioners' names pursuant to a Court order or decree, but refrained because the petitioners also lapsed by not pursuing the matter after registration of the final decree on 18.09.2021; accordingly no costs were imposed.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (R Devdas J.), by oral order dated 24 February 2026 in WP No. 39803 of 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by J. Ramesh Reddy and Umesh Reddy, disposed of the petition wherein the petitioners sought directions to Respondents 2 to 4 to consider their representations dated 29.10.2025 and 30.10.2025 (Annexures E to G) and to effect katha, mutation and RTC for land bearing Sy.No.67/P6 measuring 2 acres of Nanjapura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, by considering the compromise decree dated 08.03.2019 passed in O.S. No. 142/2016 and the final decree drawn in O.S. No. 549/2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, registered in the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Anekal on 18.09.2021. Observing that the Tahsildar had not acted upon the representations, the Court held that it would normally have imposed costs on Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar for not acting upon a Court order or decree, but abstained owing to the petitioners' own lapse in not pursuing the matter since 18.09.2021. The Court directed Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to enter the name of the petitioners in terms of the registered final decree as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and permitted the Additional Government Advocate to file a memo of appearance within four weeks.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:11485 WP No. 39803 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 39803 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

J. RAMESH REDDY S/O. LATE JAYAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

UMESH REDDY S/O. LATE JAYAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN-560 105.

Digitally signed by PRIYANKA H M

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJU M K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

…PETITIONERS

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11485 WP No. 39803 of 2025

HC-KAR

KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL PIN 562 106.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.10.2025, 30.10.2025 AND 30.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AND TO DIRECT THEM TO EFFECT KATHA, MUTATION AND RTC PERTAINING TO THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.67/P6 MEASURIG 2 ACRES OF NANJAPURA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BY CONSIDERING THE COMPROMISED DECREE DATED 08.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.142/2016 VIDE ANNEXURES-E, F AND G AND ETC.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11485 WP No. 39803 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent revenue authorities, more specifically respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk has not acted upon the representations given by the petitioners commencing from Annexures- E to G to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records in terms of the final decree drawn in O.S.No.549/2020 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, which is registered in the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar Anekal.

Normally this Court would have imposed costs on respondent No.4 - Tahsildar for not taking steps to enter the name of the petitioners pursuant to a Court order or decree. However there has been lapse on the part of the petitioners

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11485 WP No. 39803 of 2025

HC-KAR

also, inasmuch as the final decree was registered in the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar Anekal on 18.09.2021 and the petitioners have not pursued the matter before the Tahsildar.

Nevertheless the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to proceed to enter the name of the petitioners in terms of the registered final decree as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to

file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

GPG

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47