SRI P HANUMANTHAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60076
WP No. 1392 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010033122023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1392 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI P HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE POOJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.10,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560098.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTS BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER
WARD NO.160, BBMP
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE
BANGALORE-560098.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60076
WP No. 1392 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010033122023
3. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
WARD NO.160, BBMP
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE
BANGALORE-560098.
4. REVENUE INSPECTOR
WARD NO.160, BBMP
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE ZONE
BANGALORE-560098.
5.
SMT. CHANDRAKALA M.
AGED 45 YEARS,
NO. 11 CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA,
BBMP, BANGALORE 560098.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAJAYOGA K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI. NAGARAJA KUMBLE., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING ANNEXURE-A DATED 05/02/2022 PASSED
BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN DA/W160/KTR/1222/2021-
22 IN FAVOUR OF 5TH RESPONDENT AND ISSUED
UTHARA PATHRA DATED 07/02/2022 - ANNEXURE - B
IN RESPECT OF SITE NO.360/1, SITE NO. 11, SITE NO.
25/354, SITUATED CHANNASANDA VILLAGE, WARD
NO.160, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, MEASURING 360 X
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60076
WP No. 1392 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010033122023
68, 27 X 35 AND 30 X 30 FEET, TRANSFERRED IN
FAVOUR OF 5TH RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner and Sri. Puttaiah are parties to
the original suit in O.S. No.3535/2013 which is
pending on the file of a civil Court in Bengaluru. Sri.
Puttaiah had the benefit of revenue entries for three
sites bearing Nos. 360/1, 11, 25/354 of
Channasandra Village, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, BBMP
Ward No.160, Bengaluru [the subject sites] . Sri.
Puttaiah died on 30.07.2018 and the revenue entries
for these sites now stand mutated in favour of the
fifth respondent.
2. The petitioner's grievance is with the
decision to mutate the revenue entries for the subject
sites in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioner
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60076
WP No. 1392 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010033122023
asserts that the third and fourth respondents
rejected the fifth respondent’s application for
mutation of revenue entries for the subject sites
issuing Endorsement dated 25.10.2021 and
notwithstanding this Endorsement, another decision
is taken on 07.02.2022 [Annexure-B] to mutate the
revenue entries in favour of the fifth respondent.
3. This Court, on 30.03.2023, has stayed the
operation of the decision to mutate the revenue
entries in favour of the fifth respondent calling upon
the respondent-Greater Bengaluru Authority [GBA] to
place on record if there is any system in place which
locks the decision taken on an application. Sri. B.S.
Karthikeyan, the learned standing counsel for the
second to fourth respondents, submits that there is
no digital system in place to monitor the decision but
in the present case the third respondent has decided
because the legal representatives of Sri. Puttaiah
have placed on record his death certificate, a
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60076
WP No. 1392 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010033122023
genealogical tree and an affidavit stating that the
revenue entries could be mutated in favour of the
fifth respondent who is one of his daughters.
4. Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan submits that these
documents, more specifically, the affidavit by the
other legal representatives, was not part of the
record. Responding to these assertions, Sri.
Chokkareddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the circumstances now placed on record
do not undermine the petitioner's case that the third
respondent, after having taken a decision to reject the
Katha , could not have taken another decision to issue
Katha and that this later decision amounts to a
review, a power that is not conferred under the
statute in the third respondent. Sri Rajayoga K., a
learned High Court Government Pleader, who
appears for the first respondent, is heard in the light
of these submissions.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60076
WP No. 1392 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010033122023
5. This Court could indeed take exception
with the third respondent revisiting the decision to
refuse Katha based on certain additional documents,
examining whether this revisit amounts to a review
and whether such power would be available if it is
not expressly conferred under the Statute, but this
Court must consider whether the petitioner can
assert a right that is infringed with the mutation of
revenue entries in favour of the fifth respondent when
the suit is pending.
6. At this stage, the petitioner cannot assert
an interest in the subject sites because whether the
petitioner can assert an interest in the subject sites
must be decided in the pending suit in O.S.
No.3535/2013. If there is an adjudication declaring
any interest in the subject sites in favour of the
petitioner undoubtedly, the consequences must
follow. These circumstances and the fact that Sri.
Puttaiah is the undisputed Kathedar of the subject
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60076
WP No. 1392 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010033122023
sites as of the date of his demise persuades this
Court to opine that no interference is called for in
this petition except to observe that the fifth
respondent's right in the subject sites and the right
to the revenue entries for the subject sites shall be
subject to any orders that could be in his favour in
the suit in O.S. No.3535/2013.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
AN/-