Dr V Kumaran vs the State of Karnataka

Dr V Kumaran vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 05, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1691063

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/1691063
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Rajesh Rai K
Decided On: Nov 05, 2025
Case Number: WP/32064/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr V Kumaran

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....11e sketch effected in respect of land bearing sy.no.90/3 of kodigenahalli village, yelahanka hobli, bangalore north taluk, on the basis of application no.20050118138848 given by r8 to 12, vide annexure-a and etc. this petition, coming on for orders, this day,order was made therein as under:coram: hon'ble mr. justice rajesh rai koral orderin this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed 11e sketch prepared by respondent no.5 - tahsildar, yelahanka hobli, bangalore north taluk in respect of land bearing sy.no.90/3 situated at kodigehalli village, yelahanka hobli, bangalore north taluk on the basis of the application filed by respondent nos.8 to 12.2. the grievance of the petitioner is that he is theabsolute owner in possession of the land bearing site no.558/1 -4- carved in sy.no.90/2 of kodigehalli village, yelahanka hobli, bangalore north taluk. the said site was allotted to one puttaraju and consequently registered sale deed was executed on 29.11.2006 in his favour. thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said site by way of registered sale deed dated 07.03.2009. ever since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said site. however, respondent nos.8 to 12 filed an application before respondent no.5 - tahsildar to conduct a survey and to prepare a sketch in respect of the property bearing old sy.no.90/*3 (new sy.no.90/3 & 4). accordingly, respondent no.5 - tahsildar conducted the survey sketch as per annexure-'a'.3. it is the specific contention of the petitioner thatthere is a dispute in respect of some portion of land adjoining to sy.nos.90/2 and 90/3. in such circumstance, the tahsildar, without issuing notice to the petitioner, conducted the survey and issued 11e sketch as per annexure-'a', which was against the provision contemplated under section 46h of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964. * corrected vide chamber order dated 19.11.2025 -5-4. i have given my anxious consideration to the submissions.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 32064 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: DR. V. KUMARAN S/O SRI. R. VISWANATHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NE-120 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE CAMPUS BANGALORE PIN CODE-560 012 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Digitally signed by         5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
PANKAJA S                   BANGALORE-560 001
Location: HIGH              REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY
COURT OF KARNATAKA
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS (ADDL) REVENUE SURVEY OFFICE K.R CIRCLE, NEAR CENTURY CLUB BENGALURU-560 001
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS REVENUE SURVEY OFFICE K.R CIRCLE NEAR CENTURY CLUB BENGALURU-560 001 -2-
4. ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS MINI VIDHANASOUDHA
5. THE TAHSILDAR
6. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
7. THE TALUK SURVEYOR
8. UMA W/O LATE SRI RAMANJINAPPA
9. M VEENA
10. M GEETHA
11. M MANJULA
12. M RAJASHEKAR
-3- RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 12 ARE RESIDENTS OF KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE-560 092 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-7, SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R8-11) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE SURVEY AND ACCOMPANYING 11E SKETCH EFFECTED IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.90/3 OF KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, ON THE BASIS OF APPLICATION NO.20050118138848 GIVEN BY R8 TO 12, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed 11E sketch prepared by respondent No.5 - Tahsildar, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in respect of land bearing Sy.No.90/3 situated at Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk on the basis of the application filed by respondent Nos.8 to 12.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the

absolute owner in possession of the land bearing Site No.558/1 -4- carved in Sy.No.90/2 of Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said site was allotted to one Puttaraju and consequently registered Sale Deed was executed on 29.11.2006 in his favour. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said site by way of registered Sale Deed dated 07.03.2009. Ever since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said site. However, respondent Nos.8 to 12 filed an application before respondent No.5 - Tahsildar to conduct a survey and to prepare a sketch in respect of the property bearing old Sy.No.90/*3 (new Sy.No.90/3 & 4). Accordingly, respondent No.5 - Tahsildar conducted the survey sketch as per Annexure-'A'.

3. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that

there is a dispute in respect of some portion of land adjoining to Sy.Nos.90/2 and 90/3. In such circumstance, the Tahsildar, without issuing notice to the petitioner, conducted the survey and issued 11E sketch as per Annexure-'A', which was against the provision contemplated under Section 46H of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. * Corrected vide chamber order dated 19.11.2025 -5-

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the entire records placed before me.

5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents and

learned Additional Government Advocate have not seriously disputed that the notice has not been issued to the petitioner while conducting a survey. In such circumstance, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being the adjoining land owner and also there is a dispute between adjoining land in Sy.Nos.90/2 and 90/3, the Tahsildar ought to have issued the notice to the petitioner before conducting a survey as contemplated under Section 46H of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner requires to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Writ of Certiorari is issued. 11E sketch prepared by respondent No.5 - Tahsildar in respect of land bearing Sy.No.90/3 situated -6- at Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk is quashed.

iii. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are directed to conduct a fresh survey of land bearing old Sy.No.90/*3 (new Sy.No.90/3 & 4) situated at Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, after issuing notice to all the adjacent land owners within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 * Corrected vide chamber order dated 19.11.2025

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties Dr V Kumaran vs The State of Karnataka Same Judge Rajesh Rai K