- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25300 WP No. 18175 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18175 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI GOPALA REDDY Y @ Y GOPAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O YELLAPPA REDDY R/AT NO VIJAYA BUILDING OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KONENE AGRAHARA BENGALURU NORTH, VIMANAPURA BENGALURU 560017. ..…PETITIONER (BY SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF THE REVENUE M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K R PURAM, BENGALURU 560036 Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25300 WP No. 18175 of 2024 4. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K R PURAM, BENGALURU 560036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.LND(V) CR-102/2022-23, RRT/CR883/2022-23, DATED 02.02.2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO MAKE GOOD OF THE BENEFIT THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND IN QUESTION FROM THE DATE OF NOT ENTERING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN COMPUTERIZED RTC TILL DATE OF HIS NAME ENTERING IN THE COMPUTERIZED RTC 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 In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Endorsement dated 02.02.2024 (Annexure 'A') issued by respondent No.3 inter alia seeking for a direction to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25300 WP No. 18175 of 2024 respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in the computerized RTC extracts. 2. Heard Sri C.M.Nagabhushana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Babu Rao, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-State. 3. Sri C.M.Nagabhushana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the order of grant made in favour of the petitioner at Annexure 'B', the RTC extracts produced at Annexure 'D' series and the mutation made in respect of the subject land and all the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner. He further contended that, despite the same, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned Endorsement at Annexure 'A', expressing doubt in respect of the grant made in favour of the petitioner, which requires to be set aside in this writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25300 WP No. 18175 of 2024 4. Per contra, Sri Siddharth Babu Rao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State sought to justify the impugned Endorsement at Annexure 'A' and further, referred to the averments made at paragraph No.14 of the statement of objections relating to the name of the petitioner in the revenue records wherein in some of the records, the name of the petitioner is shown as 'Sri Gopal Y S/o Yelappa Reddy' and in some other records, it is stated as 'Sri Gopal Y'. Accordingly, he sought to justify the impugned Endorsement issued by respondent No.3. 5. Having taken note of the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this Court while disposing of W.P.No.25423/2022 on 17.02.2023 (Annexure 'E') directed respondent No.3 herein to re- consider the case of the petitioner on merits by looking into the revenue records supplied by the petitioner as well as the original records in the Office of respondent No.3. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25300 WP No. 18175 of 2024 6. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers, that the petitioner herein has produced the Grant Certificate at Annexure 'B', the Record of Rights and the mutation made in favour of the petitioner herein by the very same authority in respect of the subject land. 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the doubt expressed by respondent No.3 in the impugned Endorsement cannot be accepted. The respondent No.3, has expressed the word 'ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ - prima facie'. The said aspect would makes it clear that respondent No.3 has not considered the entire documents on record and has issued the impugned Endorsement erroneously, which is liable to be set-aside. 8. Taking into consideration the averments made in the petition is concerned, respondent No.3, Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk is directed to re-consider the issue afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioner herein insofar as calling for any relevant documents is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25300 WP No. 18175 of 2024 concerned and consider the same and take a decision in the matter, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL