- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4718 WP No. 375 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.375 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.VENKATESH S/O LATE V NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT HUSKUR VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK PIN CODE 562162 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA UNDER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT MS BUILDNG AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDHAYA BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR K G ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4718 WP No. 375 of 2025 3. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK KANDHAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-2 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER ANNX-B AND B1 DTD 18.07.2023, IN R.P NO.173/2019, TRANSFERRED THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SY NO.54/5, NEW SY NO.54/7, MEASURING 1 ACRE 25 GUNTAS, OF BETHANAGERE VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against respondent No.3 – Special Tahasildar to implement the order of respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-B and B.1 and restore the petitioner’s name to the petition land to an extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy. No.54/5 corresponding - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4718 WP No. 375 of 2025 New Sy. No.54/7 situated at Bethanagere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. 3. The present case is a clear example of how legal disputes arise due to the negligent and arbitrary actions of the Revenue Authorities. In this instance, the petitioner had undisputedly sold 24 guntas of land from Sy. No.54/5, which originally measured 2 acres and 9 guntas, to one Vasantha Bai through a registered sale deed dated 13.11.2003. However, despite the clear terms of the sale, Respondent No.3 – the Special Tahsildar, while acting upon the registered sale deed, carried out a mutation under MR No.21/2003-04 to reflect the extent of 24 guntas in the purchaser’s name. Strangely, in complete disregard of the actual extent alienated, the Tahasildar proceeded to effect yet another mutation under MR No.30/2002-03, wherein he inexplicably mutated the name of the purchaser for an additional portion of land - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4718 WP No. 375 of 2025 that had not been sold. This erroneous mutation resulted in an undue transfer of title over a larger extent than what was lawfully conveyed through the sale deed, thereby depriving the petitioner of his rightful ownership over the remaining portion of the land. 4. Aggrieved by this arbitrary and illegal certification of mutation by the Tahsildar, the petitioner was compelled to challenge the said mutation by filing a Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner in R.P. No.173/2019. After a thorough examination of the records and considering the legal implications of the wrongful mutation, the Deputy Commissioner found merit in the petitioner’s grievance. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the Revision Petition and categorically directed the Tahsildar to rectify the wrongful entries in the revenue records. The order specifically mandated the restoration of 1 acre and 25 guntas of land in favor of the petitioner, ensuring that his rightful ownership over the remaining extent was duly recognized. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4718 WP No. 375 of 2025 However, despite the clear and binding direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No.3–the Tahsildar failed to take necessary steps to comply with the order. Frustrated by the inaction and the continued illegality in the revenue records, the petitioner had no other recourse but to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing the present Writ Petition, seeking appropriate reliefs to enforce the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 5. The legal position is unequivocal: if the petitioner has alienated only 24 guntas of land in favor of Vasantha Bai, he is legally entitled to have his name retained in the revenue records for the remaining extent of 1 acre and 25 guntas. This remaining portion has since been reclassified as New Sy. No.54/7. The Deputy Commissioner, in his well-reasoned order, had already clarified that the mutation should be corrected to reflect the petitioner’s ownership over the land that was not alienated. However, the blatant disregard shown by the Revenue Authorities in implementing the order has resulted in grave injustice to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4718 WP No. 375 of 2025 the petitioner. Therefore, it becomes imperative for this Hon’ble Court to intervene and direct the Tahsildar to rectify the revenue records in accordance with the Deputy Commissioner's directions, thereby restoring the petitioner’s rightful title over the remaining extent of land. 6. Learned AGA would ensure this Court that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-B and B.1 will be implemented provided some reasonable time is granted. 7. Recording her assurance, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.3–Special Tahasildar shall take cognizance of the directions issued by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-B and B.1 and forthwith mutate the petitioner’s name to an extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4718 WP No. 375 of 2025 the land bearing Sy. No.54/5 (New Sy. No.54/7). (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49