Allowed¶32

Smt Puttammani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026WP/9308/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Puttammani v. State of Karnataka & Thasildar, Periyapatna Taluk; Karnataka High Court (single judge, E.S.INDIRESH, J.), 03-06-2026; WP No. 9308 of 2026 (KLR-RES); 11E sketch; change of Khatha; Thasildar notice dated 27.02.2026 quashed/set aside; Ref No. TAHPPT-RRTOKASA/392/2025; final decree proceedings FDP No. 29/2009; Hunsur Taluk; Mysuru District; representation dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-A) to be considered within 2 months; Articles 226 and 227; writ of certiorari; revenue records; HCGP Spoorthy Hegde N; advocate B S Nagaraj.

What did the court decide?

Notice/letter dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure-D) issued by respondent No.2 set aside; respondent No.2 directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-A) in accordance with law within an outer limit of 2 months; petition disposed of accordingly. ¶32

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the letter/notice dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure-D) issued by respondent No.2, Thasildar, directing the petitioner to furnish the 11E sketch in so far as change of Khatha is sustainable, where the petitioner claims right over the property based on the judgment and decree in FDP. No. 29/2009, and whether the petitioner is entitled to consideration of her representation.

¶25

Court's answer

Where the petitioner claims right over the property based on the judgment and decree passed in FDP. No. 29/2009 by the Competent Civil Court, the Thasildar (respondent No.2) ought not to have sought the 11E sketch in so far as the change of Khatha is concerned.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The notice/letter dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure-D) issued by respondent No.2 is set aside.

¶32

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-A) in accordance with law within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (KLR-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — Certiorari — Letter dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure-D) of the Thasildar, Periyapatna Taluk (Ref No. TAHPPT-RRTOKASA/392/2025) directing the petitioner to furnish the 11E sketch for change of Khatha set aside — Petitioner claiming right over the property based on judgment and decree in FDP. No. 29/2009 by the Competent Civil Court — Thasildar ought not to have sought the 11E sketch — Respondent No.2 directed to consider the representation dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-A) in accordance with law within an outer limit of 2 months — Petition stands disposed of (E.S.INDIRESH, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26106 WP No. 9308 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 9308 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PUTTAMMANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O EARANNA NAIKA, D/O CHALUVAMMA, R/AT HOSARMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE THASILDAR, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, PERIYAPATNA - 571 107, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:26106 WP No. 9308 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED. 27.02.2026, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, THASILDAR, MADE IN REF NO.TAHPPT-RRTOKASA/392/2025, DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO FURNISH THE 11E SKETCH FOR EFFECT THE FINAL DECREE. THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE IS SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.

¶24

In this petition, petitioner has sought for a

¶25

direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 05.08.2025, interalia sought for quashing the notice dated 27.02.2026 at Annexure-D, wherein, the respondent No. 2 has sought for 11E sketch in so far as the change of Khatha.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:26106 WP No. 9308 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Having taken note of the submissions made by

¶30

the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as the petitioner is claiming right over a property based on the judgment and decree passed in FDP. No. 29/2009 by the

¶31

Competent Civil Court, I am of the view that, the respondent No.2 ought not to have sought for 11E sketch in so far as the change of Khatha is concerned.

¶32

Accordingly, the notice dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure-D) is accordingly set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the representation dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-A) in accordance with law within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶34

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶35

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Smt Puttammani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Puttammani v. the 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 Venkatesh D R Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt H P Vanajakshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Padmavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Basavaraju Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Manohar M K Vs the Deputy Commissioner