Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22736 (KAR)

S SUDARSHANAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/39764/2025 · 2026-06-15

E S Indiresh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28751 WP NO.39764 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.39764 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: S. SUDARSHANAM S/O K. SHANKARNARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.112(15), 8TH CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHENNASAGARA VILLAGE, PURUVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK - 531 132. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRL - 572 132 Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28751 WP NO.39764 OF 2025 4. TAHSILDHAR, MADHUGIRI TALUK, MADHUGIRI - 572 132. 5. REVENUE INSPECTOR PURAVARA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, MADHUGIRI - 572 175. 6. SMT. SHANTHALAKHSMI W/O K. VENKATASUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.90/1, VINAYAKANAGAR, GAURIBIDANUR TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 208. 7. SMT. LEELAVATHI, W/O SHIVACHIDAMBAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/OF KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 127. 8. S. SUBRAMANYAM S/O K. SHANKARNARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT 12TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, T.P. KAILASAM ROAD, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION, OPPOSITE NALANDA CONVENT, TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18TH JULY, 2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.P.NO.131/2025, DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE ORDER DATED ORDER DATED 16TH APRIL, 2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.RRT(A)(M)239/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-L; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16TH APRIL, 2025 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28751 WP NO.39764 OF 2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.RRT(A)(M)239/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.R.R.T(DIS)94/2020-21 DATED 25TH AUGUST, 2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-G; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents 1 to 5. 2. In this petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18th July, 2025 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.2 in R.P.No.131/2025, wherein the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16th April, 2025 (Annexure-J) passed by the respondent No.3 in Case No.RRT(A)(M)239/2021 came dismissed. 3. Heard Sri. Vivek S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5. 4. Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28751 WP NO.39764 OF 2025 averments made in the writ petition, the same would indicate that the Mutation in M.R.No.T27/2021-22 has been made by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar based on the registered Sale Deed dated 15th February, 2020. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the respondent-Authorities in the impugned orders is just and proper and no interference be called for in this petition. 5. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner herein has filed Original Suit No.74 of 2020 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Madhugiri, I am of the view that the parties have to establish their right over the schedule property and same has to be crystalised in the aforesaid suit and thereafter, the parties shall approach the revenue authorities for change of revenue entries in respect of the schedule property. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21