Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23056 (KAR)

SRI SAGANAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15108/2026 · 2026-06-15

E S Indiresh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28757 WP NO.15108 OF 2026 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.15108 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SAGANAPPA S/O LATE KARIDASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT GOPALA BOOSENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PURNACHANDRA M. PURANIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKKAMGALAUR - 577 101. 3. THE TAHASILDAR TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION, TARIKERE - 577 101. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28757 WP NO.15108 OF 2026 5. SMT. ERAMMA, W/O RANGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT UDEVA VILLAGE, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 561 202. 6. SRI. SHIVAMURTHY, S/O RANGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT UDEVA VILLAGE, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 561 202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP; SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING SET- ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24TH OCTOBER, 2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.RP/23/2013- 14 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE KHATHA IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS BEARING SURVEY NO.49/3 MEASURING 2 ACRE 30 GUNTAS SITUATED AT UDEVA VILLAGE AND SURVEY NO.11/2 MEASURING 3 ACRE 03 GUNTAS SITUATED AT GANGOOR VILLAGE, BOTH COMING WITHIN LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28757 WP NO.15108 OF 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel entered appearance for respondents 5 and 6. 2. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 24th October, 2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.RP/23/2013-14; inter alia sought for direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the Khata in respect of the subject land. 3. Heard Sri. Purnachandra M. Puranik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order, wherein the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed holding that the revenue entries in terms of M.R.No.9/1986-87 and M.R.No.10/1986-87 have been effected based on the registered Sale Deed dated 27th November, 1986 and the dispute in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28757 WP NO.15108 OF 2026 respect of title of the subject land, if any, shall be decided before the competent Civil Court. On perusal of the impugned order, it is also forthcoming that the Original Suit No.7 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner against the respondents 5 and 6 herein, seeking relief of declaration and possession in respect of the subject land came to be dismissed before the Civil Judge and Additional JMFC., Trikere, by judgment and decree dated 11th December, 2019. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order is just and proper. Therefore, no interference be called for in this petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9