Karnataka High Court
WP/11185/2026 of MUNIBEERAPPA Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER on 22 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:21834 WP No. 11185 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 11185 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MUNIBEERAPPA S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O KATTIGERENAHALLI VILLAGE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 11185 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
MUNIBEERAPPA
S/O LATE MOTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/O KATTIGERENAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PATIL SANGANAGOUDA GURANAGOUDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BANGALORE 560009.
2.
THE TAHASILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK
YALAHANKA, BANGALORE 560064.
…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 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS FILED BY THE 5/3/264
PETITIONER DATED.3.3.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C AND
ETC.,
Digitally signed
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
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
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 – Yelahanka Taluk has not mutated the khata in the name of the petitioner in terms of the final decree passed in FDP No.12/2010 dated 21.01.2026. As regards the requirement of furnishing the 11E sketch, this Court has recorded the fact that the final decree was drawn up in terms of the sketch prepared by the ADLR and therefore there is no need for furnishing 11E sketch in addition. This Court had therefore directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure instructions from the 2nd respondent – Tahsildar as to why the mutation entries have not been carried out.
2. Today, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there is an entry in column No.11 of the RTC that there is a stay order passed in
HC-KAR
O.S.No.708/2013 and therefore the proceedings cannot be concluded. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said suit in O.S.No.708/2013 has been withdrawn.
3. The writ petition stands disposed of directing the petitioner to furnish a copy of the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.708/2013 to the respondent - Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk. The Tahsildar shall thereafter proceed to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in terms of the final decree passed in FDP No.12/2010 and the sketch appended to the final decree which is prepared by the ADLR. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from the date when which the information will be provided by the petitioner to the Tahsildar.
Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY/- CT: JL