Sri P C Chandrappar Eddy v. The Deputy Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.17387 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. P.C. CHANDRAPPA REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT SHREE NANDAGOKULA NILAYA, GANIGARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, SOMASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560090.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G ROAD, BENGALURU -560009.

¶2THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-5, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G ROAD, BENGALURU -560009.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G ROAD, BENGALURU -560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2026 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.P.NO.211/2026, VIDE ANNEXURE-A; 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

¶1Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶2The petitioner in this Writ Petition is assailing the order dated 26.02.2026 in R.P.No.211/2026 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 19.01.2026 in RA/BNT-223/2025 passed by respondent No.2, inter alia, sought for a direction to respondents to effect mutation/khata in respect of

the subject land, in the name of the petitioner, based on the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2018 and to enter the name of the petitioner in all revenue records in respect of the subject land.

¶3It is contended by Sri. K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2018 that immediately after registration of the sale deed, the petitioner has approached revenue authorities for change of khata, however the same has not been done based on the sole ground that J slip has not been filed by the competent authority and therefore submitted that the impugned orders passed by respondent - authorities at Annexures - A and B requires to be interfered with in this Writ Petition.

¶4It is also contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G. RAMACHAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2016 SCC OnLine KAR 8731 and submitted that since the land in question has been acquired by the respondent - State for the purpose of

formation of Dr. Shivarama Karant Layout, and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is to secure compensation from the respondent - authorities and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

¶5Per contra, Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that unless J slip is raised by the registering authority, it is difficult for respondent-authorities to enter the boundaries in respect of the subject land in the mutation register and therefore, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶6In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased the land in question as per the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2018 (Annexure-E). It is also forthcoming that the petitioner has approached respondent No.3 for change of mutation in respect of the subject land. It is also pertinent to mention here that the land in question has been acquired by the respondent - State as per the Notification dated 30.10.2018 in favour of BDA for the purpose of Dr. Shivarama Karant Layout. In that view of the matter, taking

into account the order dated

06.07.2022 in W.P.No.102325/2022(JAKKAPPA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS), I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is required to receive compensation from the competent authority as the land in question has been acquired by respondent - State in favour of BDA and as such, the name of the petitioner has to be reflected in the revenue records.

¶7Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 26.02.2026 in R.P.No.211/2026 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated

19.01.2026 in RA/BNT-223/2025 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby quashed.

(iii) It is open for the petitioner to get revenue sketch prepared at the hands of a Licensed Surveyor in terms of Clause (c) of Section 131 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and furnish the same to the respondent - Tahsildar with

all other relevant documents so as to enable Tahsildar to make entry and complete all other formalities as expeditiously as possible. As and when the revenue sketch prepared by the Licensed Surveyor is furnished by the petitioner to the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar shall make entries without wasting further time to enable the petitioner to seek compensation.

Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71