WA/609/2026 of SRI G SATHYANARAYANA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 3 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner calling in question the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.33353/2025.

2. The Writ Court under the impugned order has dismissed the petition relegating the parties to approach the Assistant Commissioner in view of the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar as per Annexure-F.

HC-KAR

3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.

4. Facts germane to file the present appeal are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the land bearing Survey No.156, an agricultural land measuring 0.01.1 gunta of Hirandahalli, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk as per Sale Deed produced at Annexure-A. After the said sale deed, he has approached the Tahsildar for the purpose of effecting his name in respect of all the revenue records. The Tahsildar issued an endorsement on the premise that though as per the sale deed, the petitioner has purchased the land, however, there is nothing forthcoming in respect of the revenue records regarding mutation of name of the vendor in respect of the land sold under the said sale deed. Calling in question the said endorsement, the petitioner has approached writ Court in Writ Petition No.33353/2025. The Writ Court after perusing the entire records placed on

HC-KAR

record directed the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the endorsement in duly constituted appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. This order passed by the Writ Court is called in question in this appeal.

5. We have heard Sri Aman N. Dravid, for Sri Subramanya S. Upasana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.

6. Sri Aman N. Dravid, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the revenue authorities are bound under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act to effect the mutation in terms of the registered document. However, the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar is an exception to the provisions and against the statute and as such, we allow the appeal and set aside the order assed by the Writ Court. Though Sri Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the contentions of the

HC-KAR

learned counsel for the appellant, however, in all fairness, he submits that if proper documents are produced before the concerned Tahsildar, the Tahsildar shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if proper time is granted for the said exercise.

7. Considering the said submissions, we are of the opinion that the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar at Annexure-F is against the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Writ Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. Set aside the order passed by the writ court by quashing the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar.

8. Petitioner to produce all the concerned records along with the registered sale deed with an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, before the Tahsildar within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

HC-KAR

9. The Tahsildar to consider the said documents and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 within four weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3