- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32699 WP NO.29645 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.29645 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. JAGADISH S/O CHAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT ATTIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE THASILDAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32699 WP NO.29645 OF 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 30TH JULY, 2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-THASILDAR VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2-THASILDAR TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN COMPUTERIZED R.T.C IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION; 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 petition, the petitioner is challenging the Endorsement dated 30th July, 2024 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.2-Thasildar, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to enter the name of the petitioner in the R.T.C. in respect of the land in question. 2. Heard Sri. B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 3. Sri. B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that, though the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.2- Tahsildar issued the impugned endorsement stating that, there is no original record as to the grant of land in favour of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32699 WP NO.29645 OF 2024 petitioner to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 4. Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, I am of the view that the petitioner has to challenge the impugned endorsement before the competent authority. 6. It is made clear that, if the petitioner challenges the impugned endorsement as stated above, the competent authority shall condone the delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61