Ramakka D vs the State of Karnataka

Ramakka D vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jul 01, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1674362

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1674362
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: E.S.Indiresh
Decided On: Jul 01, 2025
Case Number: WP/11404/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramakka D

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....for the respondents.3. it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioners that, petitioners are the legal representatives of original grantee and in terms of the order dated 02.12.1989 (annexure-b), respondent no.2 has passed an order to restore the revenue entries in favour of the original grantee, and accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the purchaser of the land in question. hence, he sought quashing of the endorsement dated 18.05.2019 (annexure-f). -4-4. per contra, smt. savitramma, learned aga appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned endorsement produced at annexure-f.5. in that view of the matter, taking into considerationof the proceedings held under section 5a of the karnataka scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978, wherein respondent no.2 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the purchaser of the land in question as per annexure-b to the writ petition and therefore, i am of the view that, respondent no.4 has not properly considered the representation made by the petitioners herein seeking change of revenue entries. therefore, i find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, impugned endorsement dated 18.05.2019 at annexure-f is required to be set aside and therefore the matter is remanded to respondent no.4 to reconsider the case of the petitioners to change the entries in the revenue records in the light of the order passed by the respondent no.2 at annexure-b to the writ petition. -5-6. it is also to be noted that, if the order passed atannexure-b has reached finality, then it is open for the respondent no.4 to take decision in the matter and to enter the names of legal representatives of original grantee in accordance with law. the said exercise shall be made by the respondent no.4 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. it is also made clear that petitioners are.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 11404 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. RAMAKKA D D/O. LATE KUMANJINI AND ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, REISIDG AT ANCHEPALYA DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
2. RAMA HANUMAKKA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
3. HANUMAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. Digitally signed by
4. MURALI MOHAN SHARMA ANAND S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, CHAYA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 5. RAMESH S/O.LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT HEGGUNDA VILLAGE, SOMPUR HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. CHETHAN., ADVOCATE FOR -2- SRI. B.M. HALA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE- 560 001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 561 203.
4. TAHASILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITRAMMA, AGA .,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.05.2019 PASSED BY THE R-4 IN BEARING NO.R.R.T/J.SO/CR/17/2018-19 AS PER ANNEXURE -F. 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 -3-

ORAL ORDER

In this petition the petitioners are assailing the Endorsement dated 18.05.2019 issued by the respondent No.4 inter alia sought for direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to restore the subject land in favour of the petitioners.

2. Heard Sri.V.Chethan, learned counsel for Sri.B.M.Haleswamy learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Savitramma, learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners that, petitioners are the legal representatives of original grantee and in terms of the order dated 02.12.1989 (Annexure-B), respondent No.2 has passed an order to restore the revenue entries in favour of the original grantee, and accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the purchaser of the land in question. Hence, he sought quashing of the Endorsement dated 18.05.2019 (Annexure-F). -4-

4. Per contra, Smt. Savitramma, learned AGA appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned Endorsement produced at Annexure-F.

5. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration

of the proceedings held under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, wherein respondent No.2 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the purchaser of the land in question as per Annexure-B to the writ petition and therefore, I am of the view that, respondent No.4 has not properly considered the representation made by the petitioners herein seeking change of revenue entries. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, impugned Endorsement dated 18.05.2019 at Annexure-F is required to be set aside and therefore the matter is remanded to respondent No.4 to reconsider the case of the petitioners to change the entries in the revenue records in the light of the order passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-B to the writ petition. -5-

6. It is also to be noted that, if the order passed at

Annexure-B has reached finality, then it is open for the respondent No.4 to take decision in the matter and to enter the names of legal representatives of original grantee in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be made by the respondent No.4 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that petitioners are required to submit any additional documents to respondent No.4 to enable the respondent No.4 to take decision in the matter in accordance with law. With this observation, petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2025 Same Parties Ramakka D vs The State of Karnataka Same Judge E.S.Indiresh