Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51581 (KAR)

SRI VISHWANATH P v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/5410/2024 · 2025-09-16

R Devdas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36870 WP No. 5410 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 5410 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VISHWANATH P S/O PATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE PERISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE PERISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SRI THANGAPPA S/O LATE PERISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 5. SRI. GANESHAPPA S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 6. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 7. SRI SUBBANNA S/O LATE NADUPERIYAPPA, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36870 WP No. 5410 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 8. SMT YEDIYAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 9. SRI PATAPPA S/O LATE NADUPERIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 10. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE NADUPERIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 11. SRI MANIYAPPA S/O LATE SOMAYYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 12. SMT RANIYAMMA W/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 13. SMT YALLAMMA W/O CHIKKAMUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 14. SMT SARASAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 15. SMT RAMAKKA W/O LATE PATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUTHANOOR VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36870 WP No. 5410 of 2024 BUDIKOTE HOBLI, BANGARAPETE TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 147 &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETHAN C, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAYANNA GOWDA N.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. 4. THE TAHSILDAR KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS ON 25/10/2022 FOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36870 WP No. 5410 of 2024 RESTORATION OF RTC IN THE NAME PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS OF SRI. PALLIGARA MUNIYAPPA IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY MEASURING 2.7 ACRES IN SY. NO. 7/3, SITUATED AT MUTHANURU VILLAGE, GULLAHALLI (P), BANGARAPET (T), KOLAR DISTRICT -563147. 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 the respondents. 2. The petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation at Annexure-C dated 25.10.2022 given by the petitioners to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that it is contended by the petitioners that late Sri. Palligaramuniyappa was the absolute owner of 2 acres 7 guntas of land in Survey No.7/3 situated at the Muthanoor Village, Budhikote Hobli, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36870 WP No. 5410 of 2024 Bangarapete Taluk, Kolar District and his name was entered in the revenue records between 1965 to 1976. However, the copies of the handwritten pahanis are produced along with the writ petition, but the revenue records do not reflect as to how Sri.Pallikaramuniyappa acquired ownership over the land in question. 3. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahsildar, Kolar Taluk, is nevertheless bound to consider the representation given by the petitioners and pass necessary orders. If the Tahsildar is of the opinion that no information is available in the revenue records or mutating entries showing as to how Sri.Pillagaramuniyappa, acquired ownership over the lands in question, an endorsement may be issued to the petitioners stating reasons why their names cannot be entered in the revenue records. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they may raise a challenge to such an endorsement before the Assistant Commissioner while - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36870 WP No. 5410 of 2024 placing all relevant information. Information may also be placed before the Tahsildar for his reference and thereafter, the Tahsildar shall consider the same and pass necessary orders or issue endorsement. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK