IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION NO. 35820 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI M. KANTHARAJU,

S/O MARADI RANGAPPA,

AGED 48 YEARS,

2. SRI. M. SHANTHKUMAR,

S/O MARADI RANGAPPA,

AGED 45 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT GIRIGOWDANAHALLI, PURAVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,

TUMAKURU DIST-572175.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

Digitally

AND:

signed by VIJAYA P

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

Location:

HIGH BY ITS COMMISSIONER TO GOVERNMENT,

COURT OF

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

KARNATAKA

M.S.BUILDING,

DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE TAHASILDAR,

MADHUGIRI TQ.,

MADHUGIRI,

TUMKUR DIST-572175.

3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST-572175.

4. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU DIST-572101.

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU -572102.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REPORT OF THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, BEARING NO. E-1826156, RRT-(I) CR 260/25-26 IHR 116/25-25 DATED 22/25-08-2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have called in question the correctness of the endorsement at Annexure-G, whereby the request of the petitioners for transfer of katha in terms of the sale deed dated 30.01.1988 has been rejected, making reference to the checklist and observing that the land comes within the purview of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the registration of katha is sought pursuant to registered sale deed dated 30.01.1988 and in terms of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'KLR Act'), the authorities must effect revenue entries regarding acquisition of title and have no jurisdiction to enter into the validity of the sale deed.

3. Perused the endorsement at Annexure-G. It is noticed that the only ground for rejection of request for transfer of katha is that the land comes within the provision of the PTCL Act. Perused the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.5721/2021. Observations at paragraphs No.5, 6 and 7 reads as follows:

"5. There is sufficient substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Tahasildar could not have declined to enter the name of the petitioners on the strength of a registered sale deed. If the Tahasildar is of the opinion that initial sale made on 16.10.1974 at the hands of Sri Junjaiah was in contravention of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, 1978, then the only legal recourse that was open for the Tahasildar was to initiate proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. Unless and until the competent authority set aside the sale as void, the Tahasildar could not have declined to enter the names of the petitioners in the land records. Since it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the extent of land granted in favour of Sri Junjaiah was 6 acres and the subsequent sales including the sale deed in favour of Sri A.B.Manjunatha was in respect of 6 acres only, there was no need for Tahasildar to seek 11E sketch.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in her submission that since 6 acres of land were transferred by Sri Junjaiah in favour of Sri Ugrappa and the same is now transferred in favour of the petitioners under registered Sale Deed dated 04.09.2018, there is no need for the petitioners to produce 11E sketch.

7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-A is set aside. The Tahasildar shall proceed to mutate the names of th