Karnataka High Court
WP/11111/2026 of SRI MUNIANJINAPPA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 10 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:20052 WP No. 11111 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 11111 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIANJINAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 11111 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI MUNIANJINAPPA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT BILESHIVALE VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU -560 077
2.
SMT. LAVANYA. B. M
D/O MUNIANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT BILESHIVALE VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU -560 077
3.
SMT. NANDAKUMARI.B.M
D/O MUNIANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT BILESHIVALE VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU -560 077
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY L., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPORTMENT MS BUILDING
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR BEEDI
BANGALORE 560001
2.
THE TAHASILDAR,
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 036
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION ISSUE TO THE RESPONDENT, NO 2
CONSIDER
THE
OBJECTION/REPRESENTATION
DATED
26.03.2026 MADE BY THE PETITIONER NO. 1 AS PER
ANNEXURE-E., AND ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
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
1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for both the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that at Annexure - B is the RTC in respect of Survey No.123/8 which reflects the name of the petitioners. The second respondent - Tahsildar has issued the impugned notice at Annexure - D proposing to change the Khata / revenue entries in terms of the registered deed of exchange dated 13.03.2026. Learned counsel submits that the deed of exchange is not executed by the petitioners. Further, the schedule in the deed of exchange also does not reflect the Survey No.123/8 and therefore, the petitioners have given a representation at Annexure-E dated 26.03.2026 to the respondent - Tahsildar to take note of the said discrepancy and have requested the Tahsildar to make the necessary corrections in the notice.
HC-KAR
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if such a representation is given by the petitioners, the second respondent - Tahsildar is duty bound to consider the same and take note of the mistake found in the notice issued by the Tahsildar.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the second respondent - Tahsildar, Bengaluru (East) Taluk to consider the representation given by the petitioners, take note of the discrepancies in the survey number and ensure that no changes are made in the revenue entries in respect of Survey No.123/8 which is not the subject matter of the deed of exchange
5. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE
GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28