Sri. D. Giridhar vs The Deputy Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 7884 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. D. Giridhar vs The Deputy Commissioner on 29 August, 2025

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                                                 -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC:33538
                                                           WP No. 10915 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 10915 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. D. GIRIDHAR,
                   S/O LATE D.B.RAGHUNATH RAO,
                    AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
                    NO.2920, GOKULAM MAIN ROAD,
                   V.V.PURAM, MYSURU -570002
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI R.S. RAVI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                        MYSURU, MYSURU-570001

                   2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed
by                      MYSURU, MYSURU-570001.
SHARADAVANI
B                  3.   THE TAHSILDAR,
Location: High
Court of                MYSURU TALUK,
Karnataka
                        MYSURU 570 001

                   4.   BHAGYA SHANKAR,
                        W/O V.S.JAI SHANKAR SWAMY,
                        AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                        D.NO.404, 3RD MAIN,
                        4TH STAGE, T.K.RXTENSION,
                        MYSURU CITY 570009.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFER SHAH AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
                                  -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:33538
                                         WP No. 10915 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-
1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER
DTD. 19.06.2023 VIDE ANNX-D.

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

The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice

for the respondents No.1 to 3.

2. Notice to respondent No.4 is not necessary for the

following reasons:

3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of

mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District

to consider the representation dated 19.06.2023 at Annexure-D

given by the petitioner.

4. Sri R S Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased 04.4

guntas of land under a registered sale deed dated 9th February,

1994 at Annexure-A. However, the 4th respondent from whom

the petitioner purchased the property sought to interfere with

the peaceful possession of the petition schedule property, and

NC: 2025:KHC:33538

HC-KAR

therefore, the petitioner filed OS No.1313/2006 before the

learned IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysore for declaration and

permanent injunction, and there is a judgment and decree

passed in favour of the petitioner. However, the grievance of

the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner is not entered

in the revenue records.

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for

the respondents No.1 to 3 pointed out the description of the

property in the registered sale deed dated 9th February, 1994,

and submits that the petitioner has purchased a residential site

measuring 60'x80', and admittedly, the land was converted.

Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner cannot seek

revenue entries to be maintained now in the revenue records

when the land is situated within the jurisdiction of the Mysuru

City Corporation.

6. Having regard to the facts stated herein above, this

Court is of the considered opinion that it is the Tahsildar,

Mysuru Taluk to whom a request was to be made and not the

Deputy Commissioner. Moreover if the lands are within the

jurisdiction of Mysuru City Corporation, then the question of

NC: 2025:KHC:33538

HC-KAR

maintaining the revenue records now in the name of the

petitioner would not arise. Nevertheless, the writ petition

stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to

approach the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk with a

request to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue

records. However, the Tahsildar shall verify as to whether the

property in question is an agricultural land or a converted

residential site, and whether it is situated within the jurisdiction

of the Mysuru City Corporation. If it is found that the land in

question is not an agricultural land, and situated within the

jurisdiction of the Mysuru City Corporation, then appropriate

endorsement shall be issued to the petitioner. However, if it is

found that the land in question is an agricultural land, and the

petitioner is entitled to have his name entered in the revenue

records, and appropriate order shall be passed by the

Tahsildar.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

Bkm