Smt Jayamma v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2026:KHC:6020( WP(No.(36253(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RDDATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R(DEVDAS( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(36253(OF(2025((KLR-RR/SUR)( ( BETWEEN:(( ( , SMT.,JAYAMMA, W/O,LATE,THIMMAIAH,,, AGED,ABOUT,72,YEARS,,, RESIDING,AT,PEDDANAPALYA,VILLAGE,,, TAVAREKERE,HOBLI,,, BENGALURU,SOUTH,TALUK-562,130., …PETITIONER, , (BY,SRI.,RAGHUNANDAN,S.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE,,, M.S.BUILDING,,, Digitally BANGALORE-560,001.,,signedtiby LAKSHMI0T REP,BY,ITS,SECRETARY., Location: ,High0Court of0Karnataka 2., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,, BENGALURU,URBAN,, OFFICE,AT,D.C.,OFFICE,,, K.G.,ROAD,,, BENGALURU-560,009., ,

3., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,, BENGALURU,SOUTH,SUB-DIVISION,,, NDKANDHAYA,BHAVANA,,2 ,FLOOR,,, K.G.,ROAD,,, BENGALURU-560,009., ,

¶4THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 130. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO MUTATE THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.6, MEASURING 3-ACRES SITUATED AT PEDDANAPALYA VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED

04.06.2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

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 Additional Government Advocate takes notes for all the respondents.

¶2It is the contention of the petitioner that she was granted with 3 acres of land in Survey No.6 of Peddanapalya Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in terms of grant order bearing No.LND(3)1880/1984-85 dated 25.06.1984. However, the

petitioner's name has not been entered in the revenue records.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.R.A.(S) 241/2020-2021 seeking necessary direction to the Tahsildar to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The Assistant Commissioner, having secured a report from the Tahsildar, Magadi Taluk, found that saguvali chit dated 24.01.1985 has been issued to the petitioner and therefore, rejection of the mutation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, directions were issued to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. However, the Tahsildar preferred a revision petition before the Special Deputy Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.RRT

(2) C.R.01/2016-17 and the Special Deputy Commissioner dropped the proceedings under Section 136(3) while directing the Tahsildar to comply with the directions issued

by the Assistant Commissioner. However, though the order was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on

25.11.2021, the Tahsildar has failed to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

¶4Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that neither the Assistant Commissioner nor the Special Deputy Commissioner have stated that they have secured the original grant register to find out whether the claim of the petitioner is genuine or not. No information is forthcoming from the writ petition as to whether the petitioner paid the kimmat after the grant order was passed. That being the position, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk to verify from the original grant register, Saguvali chit issue Register and find out whether there was such an order passed by the competent Authority granting the lands in favour of the petitioner and whether kimmat was

collected and saguvali chit was issued in favour of the petitioner. During verification of the original records, the petitioner shall also be present so that the petitioner will be satisfied that the original records have been looked into.

¶5The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30