(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V.,ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 s. 136(3)
Judgment
1. SRI K B ASHOKA S/O LATE SRI BHASKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
2. SMT SOUBHAGYA W/O LATE SRI.BHASKARIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
3. SRI K.B.BALACHANDRA, S/O LATE SRI BHASKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
4. SMT. K. B. LATHA, D/O LATE SRI BHASKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
5. SMT. REKHA, D/O LATE SRI BHASKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KIRANGOORU VILLAGE, K.SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA 571438 (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16191 WP No. 8086 of 2026 HC-KAR AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANAVEEDHI, BENGALURU - 01
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA-571 434 MANDYA DISTRICT
THE TAHASILDAR SR PATNA TALUK, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT, - 571438
SRI. MOHAN KUMAR @ PAPU S/O LATE SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O HALE KIRANGOOR VILLAGE, K.SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571438 (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16191 WP No. 8086 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE, QUASH THE ORDER BY RESPONDENT-4 DATED
08.07.2025 PASSED IN CASE NO. LND 197/2021-22 AT ANNEXURE- H TO THE WRIT PETITION; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25/11/2025 PASSED IN M.R T 86/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE- K TO THE WRIT PETITION; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO MAINTAIN THE REVENUE RECORDS /MUTATION ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS FOR SY. NO. 340 MEASURING 08 GUNTAS, KIRANGOORU VILLAGE, K.SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, AND BY DELETING GOVERNMENT PROPERTY' ENTRY IN COLUMN 9 OF THE RTC FORTHWITH. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16191 WP No. 8086 of 2026 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Notice to respondent No.5 is not necessary for the following reasons. Learned High Court Government Pleader raises a preliminary objection that the order impugned is passed by the Tahsildar, Srirangapatna Taluk and there would be no cause of action for the petitioners to question the orders passed by the Tahsildar, since the Tahsildar has only directed the office to institute proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for cancellation of the revenue entries and no positive orders are passed by the Tahsildar cancelling the revenue entries. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to Annexure - K and submits that the Tahsildar has proceeded to change the - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16191 WP No. 8086 of 2026 HC-KAR revenue entries pursuant to the impugned order. However, on perusal of Annexure - K, it is clear that the orders are passed pursuant to an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner proceedings bearing No.RRTCR/S/291/2025-26
Operative part
25.11.2025. The petitioners have not questioned the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Moreover, if such an order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the same can be redressed before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE RB
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s. 136(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.