- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34078 WP No. 19716 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 19716 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI M SURESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE B. M. MUNISHAMANNA, MOTHAKAPALLI VILLAGE, THAYALURU HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK – 563 131 KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ROHINI., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. AKSHATHA SHETTY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TAHASILDAR MULABAGILU TALUK, MULABAGILU, KARNATAKA – 563 131 2. REVENUE INSPECTOR THAYALUR HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, MULABAGILU, KARNATAKA – 563 131 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34078 WP No. 19716 of 2025 05.05.2025, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN BEARING NO. INA/CR/02/2025-26, VIDE ANNEXURE-B 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 Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-B dated 05.05.2025, wherein the Tahasildar, Mulabagilu Taluk, has rejected the request made by the petitioner to enter his name in the RTC based on a sale deed dated 26.02.1960, under which the petitioner's father is said to have purchased 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Survey No.50 of Achampalli Village, Thayaluru Hobli, Mulabagilu Taluk, and the fact that the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Syed Bashir Ahmed has declared that a prior purchaser should be given the benefit of the prior purchase and the subsequent rights vesting in the previous vender under the principles of feeding the grant by estoppel. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34078 WP No. 19716 of 2025 3. This Court finds that even according to the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner or his father did not approach the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 seeking conferment of occupancy rights on the basis of the said judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, when it is clear that the occupancy rights have not been conferred in favour of the petitioner’s father or the petitioner by the competent authority and the fact that land has vested in the Government on the appointed day, the name of the petitioner cannot be entered in the revenue records. 4. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned endorsement issued by the Tahasildar. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY