Smt. Bhagyamma v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.18040 OF 2026 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN:

¶1SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT TALEKOPPA, GUBBI TALUK TALEKOPPA, CHELUR HOBLI, TALEKOPPA, TUMAKURU - 572 117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶2THE TAHASILDAR, TUMAKURU TALUK, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA - 577 101, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU. …RESPONDENTS

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39721( WP(No.(18040(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010399582026( ( ( (BY,SRI.,SPOORTHY,HEGDE,N.,,HCGP,), , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,226,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, ENDORSEMENT, DATED, 08.05.2026, BEARING, NO., TOGUB, OFFICE,GUBBI,E-ADMOLNDG/240/2026-ADMN-TALUK,1036025, NDISSUED,BY,THE,2 ,,RESPONDENT,,THE,TAHASILDAR,,GUBBI, TALUK,, GUBBI,, TUMAKURU, DISTRICT,, VIDE,, ANNEXURE-E;, AND,ETC.,, , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,E.S.INDIRESH, ORAL(ORDER( Heard, the, learned, counsel, appearing, for, the, respective,parties.,

2., In, this, writ, petition,, the, petitioner, has, challenged, the, Endorsement, dated, 08.05.2026, (Annexure-E),issued,by,respondent,No.2-Thasildar.,

3., Learned,counsel,appearing,for,the,petitioner, contended, that, the, petitioner, had, submitted, an,

application seeking grant of land as an unauthorised occupant. However, the said application came to be rejected by respondent No.2 by issuing the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-E.

¶4It is further contended that the reasons assigned in the impugned Endorsement are arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent-authorities have granted lands to several other persons in the very same survey number, whereas the petitioner's application alone has been rejected, thereby subjecting the petitioner to discriminatory treatment. On these grounds, he sought interference by this Court.

¶5Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State sought to justify the impugned Endorsement and submitted that sufficient land is required to be

retained as gomal land for grazing cattle. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner's application was rightly rejected and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶6In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and upon perusal of Annexures-C and D (Copy of RTC extract and Sketch), it is evident that the respondent-authorities have granted portion of land in the very same survey number in favour of various persons. However, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected under the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-E.

¶7Having regard to the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned in the impugned Endorsement cannot be sustained in law, particularly when similarly

situated persons have been granted land in the very same survey number. Consequently, the matter requires reconsideration by respondent No.2 on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶8Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Endorsement dated

08.05.2026 issued by respondent No.2–Tahsildar, produced at Annexure-E, is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within an outer limit of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65