Disposed¶35

Sri M Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Mandamus – Khata transfer

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2026WP/4742/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; WRIT PETITION NO. 4742 OF 2026 (LB-RES); Justice Suraj Govindaraj; decided 24.02.2026; writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; khata transfer; Grama Panchayath; Panchayath Development Officer; physical representation dated 02.08.2025 not considered; online application required; timeline under the Karnataka Sakala Services Act, 2011; petition disposed of with liberty to file online application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an online application for transfer of Khata; respondent No.2 directed to consider such application in accordance with the timeline prescribed under the Karnataka Sakala Services Act, 2011. ¶35

Sri M Mohan Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:11586 WP No. 4742 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4742 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M. MOHAN S/O LATE M.A. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MANDURU VILLAGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 049.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. BASAVANNA M.D, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ, ROOM NO. 436, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD GATE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MANDURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANDURU VILLAGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 049.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-2

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:11586 WP No. 4742 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 02.08.2025 THEREBY, DIRECT THE R-2 TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER AS PER THE ANNX-C PRODUCED HEREWITH

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶26

Sri. M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.2.

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

a. To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/s like in any nature and to direct the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner dated 02.08.2025 thereby, direct the respondent No. the 2 to proceed with the matter as per the ANNEXUREproduced herewith.

¶29

b. To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper by considering above said facts and circumstances of case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation

¶31

submitted by the petitioner on 02.08.2025 for the transfer of Khata has not been considered by respondent

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11586 WP No. 4742 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

No.2 and necessary orders passed. A perusal of the representation indicates that it is a physical representation, which has been submitted, which cannot be the basis for consideration of Khata transfer.

¶35

For the said purpose, an online application is required to be filed, accompanied by the necessary documents. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to file such an online application and directing respondent No.2 to consider the same in accordance with the timeline prescribed under the Karnataka Sakala Services Act, 2011, the petition stands disposed of.

¶36

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶37

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

¶38

GJM

Sri M Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ajay Mandira Cariappa Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Ambuja G Vs Bangalore Central City Corporation.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Bangalore Central City Corporation Circle

Mr M Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mstr.Mohammed Aris Vs Assistant Director Statistics and the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths

Sri.M.Dilip Kumar Vs the Commissioner