SMT. NAGAMMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAMMA, W/O CHANAPPA , AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS , R/A BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK-562149. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VASUDEVA REDDY N., ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

#2. THE TAHSILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, MINI VIDHAN SHOUDHA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 064. Location: High Court of Karnataka …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHANMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2-TAHSILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.07.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17464 WP No. 8514 of 2026 HC-KAR PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-G) SEEKING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-3, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for all the respondents.

#2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2-Tahasildar, Yelahanka Taluk, has failed to comply with the directions issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner in terms of order dated 02.06.2025 at Annexure- F in proceedings bearing RRT/T(2)(NA)CR/55/2024-25.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Tahasildar, Yelahanka Taluk, under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Special Deputy Commissioner considered the allocation of the Tahasildar that the revenue entries have been made on the basis of bogus and forged documents. However, the Special Deputy Commissioner, after - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17464 WP No. 8514 of 2026 HC-KAR verifying the records, came to a conclusion that the mutation entries which was made earlier is in accordance with law and having regard to the grant made in favour of Smt. Nagamma W/o Channappa. Accordingly, the directions were issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner to the Tahasildar to re-enter the name of the original grantee in the computerized RTC.

#4. Learned counsel further submits that despite such directions being given to the Tahasildar and further request made by the petitioner in terms of Annexure-G, no action has been taken by the Tahasildar.

#5. Consequently, writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the respondent No.2-Tahasildar to proceed to comply with the directions issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner and make the appropriate entries in the computerized RTC as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE