Smt Bhagyabai v. The Tahshildar

NC:(2026:KHC:5443( WP(No.(10723(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

STDATED(THIS(THE(31 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R(DEVDAS( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(10723(OF(2025((KLR-RES)( ( BETWEEN:(( ( , SMT.,BHAGYABAI, W/O,THIMMANAYAK,,

AGED,ABOUT,55,YRS.,, RESIDING,AT,BARAGENAHALLI,, KENGAL,POST,,SOMPURA,HOBLI,, NELAMANGALA,TALUK,,

BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT., …PETITIONER, , (BY,SRI.,MANJUNATHA,V.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., THE,TAHSHILDAR, Digitally signedtiby TALUK,PANCHAYATH,OFFICE,, LAKSHMI0T Location: SUBHASHANAGAR,,NELAMANGALA,, High0Court of0Karnataka BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT., ,

2., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA,SUB-DIVISION,, DODDABALLAPURA,, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SMT.,NAVYA,SHEKHAR,,AGA), ,

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: (I) DIRECT THE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 TO OBTAIN RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE SY.NO.116 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 4 ACRES WHICH IS SITUATED AT KENGAL VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DIRECT; 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

At the oral request of learned counsel for petitioner, the State of Karnataka represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District is permitted to be impleaded as party respondents to the proceedings.

¶2Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner is directed to serve copies of the petition along with annexures on the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶4It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband late Sri Thimmanayak was granted 4 acres of land in Survey No.116 of Kengal Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk and his name was entered in the revenue records which continued till 2002. However, after computerization the name of the petitioner is not being reflected in the RTC. Learned counsel would also submit that on considering the representation given by the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk has issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-K, stating that the petitioner has not furnished any documents to prove the grant. Learned counsel submits that it was the duty of the Tahsildar to verify from the original records as to whether the claim of the petitioner is genuine or not. That exercise has not been undertaken by the Tahsildar.

¶5Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the first respondent - Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk, to verify the original grant register, Saguvali chit issue register, mutation register etc., in the presence of the petitioner to find out the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner. If it is found that the original grant register and the mutation register contained the information regarding the grant and the mutation entry, then the Tahsildar shall proceed to enter the name of the petitioner or all the legal heirs of late Sri Thimmanayaka in the revenue records. On the other hand, if it is found that no such information is available and it is forthcoming from the original records, then appropriate endorsement may be issued to the petitioner stating that the original records have been verified and no information regarding the grant made in favour of the petitioner's husband is forthcoming from the records.

¶6Nevertheless the entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21