Sri Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 34043 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI MUNIRAJU, SON OF LATE NAGARAJ Y, GRANDSON OF YARAPPA @ YARAPPA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH - 560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHRIDHARA K, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶2THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE 2ND

by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.08.2025 (ANNEXURE-E) FOR MUTATION OF NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS OF LAND BEARING OLD SY. NO.71. NEW SY.NO.71/P8, MEASURING ACRE. RAMPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU WITHIN A TIME-BOUND PERIOD AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

¶2It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner's grandfather, late Sri.Yarappa, who was in unauthorised occupation of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.71. New Survey No.71/P8 situated at Ramapura Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk was granted the lands pursuant to an application filed for regularisation of unauthorised occupation. Saguvali chit was also issued in

favour of the petitioner's grandfather, as seen at Annexure-A dated 27.11.1961 and the name of the petitioner's grandfather was also entered in the revenue records and it was till the year 2002-03. However, after computerisation and digitisation the name of the petitioner's grandfather was not continued in the revenue records.

¶3After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds from the material on record that the name of the petitioner's grandfather was earlier entered in the land revenue records. However, if the Tahsildar is of the opinion that the petitioner's grandfather has not been granted lands, nevertheless, it is the duty of the Tahsildar to secure the original grant records, Saguvali Chit issue register and other contemporaneous records to satisfy himself regarding the grant made in favour of the petitioner's grandfather. Moreover, there is no reason why the name

of the petitioner's grandfather which was earlier entered in the land revenue records has been continued after computerization, the Tahsildar is duty bound to look into all these aspects and pass necessary orders.

¶4The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, to verify from the records and find out if grant was made in favour of petitioner's grandfather and if he has paid the kimmath. If it is found from the records that the facts stated hereinabove are true, then the Tahsildar shall proceed to enter the name of the petitioner's grandfather in the computerised RTC in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17