- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2310 WP No. 202670 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.202670 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: GOPALAKRISHANA P. RAO, AGE: 45 YEARS, S/O LATE K.PRAHALAD RAO, MAJOR, R/O NO.32, 1ST MAIN, 2ND PHASE, DR. R.P. ROAD, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 055. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR-584 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LINGASGUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-584 122. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, LINGASGUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-584 122. 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR, LINGASUGUR, LINGASUGUR CIRCLE, LINGASUGUR-584 122. 5. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KARADAKAL VILALGE – 584 122. Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2310 WP No. 202670 of 2024 6. SHIRASTEDAR, BHUMI KENDRA, TAHASHIL OFFICE, LINGASUGUR-584 122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, (I) CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AT RAICHUR, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2023 PASSED IN I.A. NO.1 IN RP NO.145/2022 (ANNEXURE-M) BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER; (II) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CANCEL MUTATION ENTRY NO.11/1991 AND RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER’S FATHER IN COLUMN 9 OF THE RTC PERTAINING TO SY.NO.285/1/1 AND SY.NO.285/1/2 IN KARADKAL VILLAGE, LINGASUGUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri Rajesh Mahale, learned Senior Counsel, who appears through video conference and represents the petitioner. Also heard learned Additional Government Advocate, who represents the respondents. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2310 WP No. 202670 of 2024 2. Seeking the Court to set aside the order that is rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur in I.A.No.1 in R.P.No.145/2022 dated 18.07.2023 and consequently to direct the respondents to cancel the mutation entry No.11/1991 and to restore the name of the petitioner’s father in column No.9 of the RTC pertaining to the land in Sy. No.285/1/1 and Sy. No.285/1/2 of Karadkal village, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner and one Srinivas jointly purchased the land admeasuring 2 acres with RS No.285/1/1, land admeasuring 2 acres 17 guntas with RS No.285/1/2 and 32 guntas with RS No.285/2 of Karadkal village of Lingasagur Taluk, Raichur District through a registered Sale Deed. Later, the said Srinivas executed a Release Deed releasing his share of property in favour of the father of the petitioner. Thereafter, the name of the father of the petitioner came to be entered in column No.9 of the RTC. However, the Tahsildar of Lingasugur passed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2310 WP No. 202670 of 2024 an order directing forfeiture of the land in Sy. Nos.285/1/1 and Sy. No.285/1/2 on the ground that the father of the petitioner did not pay the land revenue. Learned counsel states that no notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of the arrears of land revenue and even no communication was made in respect of the said mutation entry. Learned counsel states that the revenue authorities thereby violated Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the father of the petitioner filed proceedings under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In the said proceedings, the Tahsildar submitted that there is no information about the manner in which the proceedings were conducted and concluded, as the records were not available. However, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that the mutation entry was questioned after 23 years. However, they were challenged with a delay and I.A.No.1 was filed seeking the Deputy - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2310 WP No. 202670 of 2024 Commissioner to condone the delay. But, the delay was not condoned and the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel states that as the entry in the revenue records is against the mandate of law, a just opportunity ought to have been issued to vindicate the grievance of the petitioner. Learned counsel also states that the father of the petitioner due to his advance age could not pursue the matter before the Assistant Commissioner diligently and as the mandate of law is violated, a just opportunity ought to have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner by condoning the delay. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate, who represents the respondents seeks the Court to dispose of the writ petition on merits. 6. The impugned order reveals that the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur dismissed the interlocutory application filed for condoning the delay on the ground that the delay is abnormal. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is before this Court with a submission - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2310 WP No. 202670 of 2024 that the mandate of law is violated and the same is not considered at any stage, this Court considers desirable to set aside the impugned order that is passed in I.A.No.1 in R.P. No.145/2022 and consequently to condone the delay so that the petitioner can vindicate his grievance. 7. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER i) The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur in I.A.No.1 in R.P. No.145/2022 dated 18.07.2023 is set aside. Consequently, the delay is condoned. ii) The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur is directed to take up the matter in R.P. No.145/2022 and dispose of the same on merits by following the procedure established by law. Sd/- (Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51