Karnataka High Court
WP/13073/2026 of SMT PILLA CHENNAMMA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 27 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:23412 WP No. 13073 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 13073 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SMT PILLA CHENNAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O MUNIKEMPANNA, R/ A NO.8 NEAR
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 13073 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SMT PILLA CHENNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
D/O MUNIKEMPANNA,
R/A NO.8 NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE,
KATTIGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU 500 064.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHADESHWARAN C N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE 500001.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YELAHANKA DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560064.
3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
2ND FLOOR, KANDAYABHAVAN,
Digitally signed
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
K.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
4.
THE TAHASILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT 560064.
5.
THE SUB REGISTRAR,
GANGANAGAR,
GANDHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
NO 46, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR SBI BANK,
BELLARY MAIN ROAD, R T NAGAR POST,
GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560032.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA., AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4
TO REMOVE THE BLOCK GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION IN THE
COMPUTER
BY
CONSIDERING
THE
ANNEXURES-G,
CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.,
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the efforts made by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, to discontinue the name of the original grantee in
HC-KAR
the revenue records and to prevent entry of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records have been set at naught at the hands of this Court, which was confirmed at the hands of the Hon'ble Division Bench and thereafter, at the hands of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Now when the petitioner seeks to partition the property in question between the family members and get the partition deed registered in the office of the respondent No.5-Sub Registrar, Ganganagar, Gandhinagar Sub-Division respondent No.5-Sub Registrar has informed the petitioner that a restriction has been placed in the system which says, "Government restriction which cannot be transacted".
2. On 24.04.2026, this
Court had issued directions to the respondent No.4 – Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk and the respondent No.5 - Sub registrar, Ganganagar, Gandhinagar Sub-division, to be present before this Court with all relevant information as to how such a restriction has been placed in the system, which is
HC-KAR
preventing the petitioner from getting the partition deed executed and registered in the office of the Sub Registrar. Accordingly, the Tahsildar and the concerned Sub Registrar are present before this court.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits on instructions that the restriction found in the system is system generated and the same has to be removed by the competent authority.
4. Having regard to the admitted fact that the SLP filed by the State of Karnataka and others against the petitioners herein in SLP(Civil) No.63603/2025 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.11.2025, it was the duty of the competent authority, whether it is the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner or the Tahsildar to remove all such restrictions from the system. Any further delay at the hands of the concerned respondent authorities, to remove the restriction put in the system will have to be viewed very seriously.
HC-KAR
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division and the Tasildar, Yelahanka Taluk to proceed to remove such restriction put in the system known as Bhoomi software to enable the registration of the document. At any rate, the restriction shall be removed on or before 30.04.2026 to enable the registration of the document at the earliest. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE
KLY/- CT:JL