Disposed¶35

Smt Ambuja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026WP/9009/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (mandamus); 11E sketch; land records; Karnataka revenue authorities; Sy.No.26/2; 28 guntas; Chokkanahalli Village; Hesaraghatta Hobli; Yelahanka Taluk; Bengaluru Urban District; Annexure-D dated 22.01.2026; online application not considered; Tahsildar Yelahanka; Assistant Director of Land Records; Deputy Commissioner; State of Karnataka Revenue Department; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; disposed of with 6-week compliance direction; HCGP Sri. V. Seshu; R. Devdas J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 4 and 6 to consider the petitioner's Annexure-D application dated 22.01.2026 and furnish the 11E sketch as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶35

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent authorities Nos. 4 to 6 should be directed to consider the petitioner's application (Annexure-D dated 22.01.2026) for the 11E sketch relating to Sy.No.26/2 (28 guntas), Chokkanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, and furnish the sketch within a time frame.

¶34

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent Nos. 4 and 6 to consider the application given by the petitioner at Annexure-D dated 22.01.2026 and furnish the 11E sketch to the petitioner 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.

¶35

Key takeaways

The Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file a memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.obiter¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 9009 of 2026 (KLR-RES), High Court of Karnataka (R. Devdas J., oral order dated 02.04.2026): Petitioner Smt. Ambuja W/o Ramesh G.N's online application dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure-D) seeking an 11E sketch for Sy.No.26/2 to an extent of 28 guntas of Chokkanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, had not been considered by the revenue authorities. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to issue the 11E sketch. The court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent Nos. 4 and 6 (Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk and Assistant Director of Land Records) to consider the Annexure-D application and furnish the 11E sketch as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; the HCGP was permitted 4 weeks to file a memo of appearance.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:17992 WP No. 9009 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 9009 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. AMBUJA W/O RAMESH G.N, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NEAR PUBLIC WATER TANK, DIBBUR VILLAGE, KAKOLU POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 089.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SUNIL K.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESH K.R, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:17992 WP No. 9009 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA - 560 064.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 TO ISSUE 11E SKETCH RELATING TO THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.26/2 TO AN EXTENT OF 28 GUNTAS, OF CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-D DATED 22.01.2026 WITHIN A TIME FRAME.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for

¶31

all the respondents.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17992 WP No. 9009 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's online application seeking 11E sketch filed on 22.01.2026 has not been considered by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition is to issue appropriate directions to respondents Nos.4 to 6 to consider the application filed by the petitioner and furnish the 11E sketch within a time frame.

¶35

Having regard to the contentions raised in the petition, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent Nos.4 and 6 to consider the application given by the petitioner at Annexure-D dated 22.01.2026 and furnish the 11E sketch to the petitioner 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.

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶37

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶38

Smt Ambuja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ambuja 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 D Ramakrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Chennamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Venkatarama Bhat Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Panduranga Pai Vs the Land Tribunal

Dr. Molakala Prasad Reddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Puttegowda Vs the State of Karnataka