SRI. R. RAVI KUMAR v. Court of Karnataka
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 s. 136(3)
Judgment
SRI. R. RAVI KUMAR S/O.LATE R. SESHAIAH NAIDU, AGED 67 YEARS HOMMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI-3, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT E-6 VILLA, RANAKA COLONY, BILEKAHALLI, B.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-II, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BEHIND KHANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4062 WP No. 31766 of 2025 HC-KAR BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYAM BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.
THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR BEGUR HOBLI (IN FRONT OF SRI PANCHALIGA NAGESHWAARA TEMPLE) BEGUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 068.
THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT HOMMADEVANAHALLI VILALGE PANCHAYATH BEGUR ROAD, (IN FRONT OF SRI PANCHALINGA NAGESHWARA TEMPLE ) BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) DIRECT THE 4TH RESPONDENT FORTHWITH TO DELETE THE ENTRY IN COLUMN NO.11 SHOWING PENDENCY OF CASE IN RRT(2)(S)CR 56/2007-08 UNDER SECTION 136(3) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT'PERTAINING TO THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.57/57, SITUATED AT HOMMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4062 WP No. 31766 of 2025 HC-KAR BEGURUHOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 3 ACRES AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for all respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the entry made in column No.11 of the RTC regarding proceedings initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner in RRT(2)(S)CR 56/2007-08 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is continued although the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 27.10.2021 dropping the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act. Secondly, it is submitted that the land revenue, which is sought to be paid by the petitioner, is not being received by the respondent-Tahsildar. In that regard, the petitioner/respondent No.4 has issued a legal notice at Annexure-H and the Deputy Commissioner has also issued directions to the Tahsildar, as - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4062 WP No. 31766 of 2025 HC-KAR found at Annexure-G dated 05.09.2024, to take action in accordance with law. Despite the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, has not taken any action.
Operative part
3. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to proceed immediately to remove the unauthorised entry made in column No.11(2) of the RTC pertaining to Survey No.57 of Hommadevanahalli Village, Beguru Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in respect of 3 acres of land belonging to the petitioner. The Tahsildar shall also collect the land revenue, if sought to be paid by the petitioner, since the name of the petitioner is reflected in the RTC. After receipt of the land revenue, the Tahsildar or the competent authority shall also issue a receipt for the same.
4. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4062 WP No. 31766 of 2025 HC-KAR Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; 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.