- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.928 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.187, PALEKAMMANAGAR CHIKKAJALA POST JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562157 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SOMASEKHARA K H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING REVENUE DEPARTMENT BENGALURU-01 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560002 3. THE TAHASILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.11.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 10.10.2023 IN W.P.No.343/2023 AND THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI CONFIRMING THE GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF SMT.AKKAYYAMMA DATED 21.10.2024 AT R.K/C.R.No.29/2024-25 AT ANNEXURE-N 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 This is the second round of litigation, wherein the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the endorsement issued by the competent Authority. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP. 3. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 respondents to take appropriate action in response to her representation dated 08.11.2023. The petitioner has relied on the communication issued by respondent No.3 – Tahasildar, Yelahanka, which was further referred to by the Tahasildar, Devanahalli in his responding communication dated 21.10.2024, as evidenced in Annexure-H. The said communication indicates that the Office of the Tahasildar, Devanahalli, has maintained the relevant records and that only two crucial documents related to the petition land are available, namely the Darkasth Register (Annexure-B) and the register concerning the issuance of the Saguvali Chit. 4. It is the duty of respondent No.3 – Tahasildar to examine these documents and take appropriate action under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. However, respondent No.3 has displayed gross negligence in addressing the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner claims her title over the land in question through her mother-in-law, who was the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 original grantee of the land. The petitioner asserts that her mother-in-law had received the land as a grant from the competent authority and that the then Tahasildar of Devanahalli had issued the Saguvali Chit, which is evidenced at Annexure-E. The apparent inaction and indifference of respondent No.3 in addressing the petitioner’s rightful claim demonstrate a clear dereliction of duty. The Revenue Authorities have a statutory obligation to maintain public records, especially those concerning grants issued in favor of citizens. This Court has repeatedly encountered instances where Revenue Officials, owing to their lackadaisical approach, fail to preserve crucial public records, which in turn leads to their inability or unwillingness to act upon the requests of rightful claimants, including legal heirs of original grantees. It is often observed that instead of addressing the claims based on valid records, the Revenue Authorities issue vague endorsements stating that the original records are unavailable or raise unwarranted doubts about the legitimacy of the grant. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 5. In the present case, Annexure-B, which contains a list of applicants whose requests were considered by the then Tahasildar, is a significant document. A careful perusal of Annexure-B establishes that the name of the petitioner’s mother-in-law, Akkayamma, is duly recorded therein. This fact substantiates that her application for the land grant was considered and acted upon by the competent authorities. The grant of the land in question to the petitioner’s mother-in-law is further corroborated by the entries in the Darkasth Register, which document the issuance of the Grant Order, as evidenced in Annexure-C. 6. A meticulous examination of these records leaves no doubt that the land was granted to the petitioner’s mother-in-law through an official order dated 24.02.1972. The petitioner has also furnished true copies of the challans confirming the payment of the requisite premium amount, as demanded by the authority before the issuance of the Saguvali Chit. This documentary evidence is found at Annexure-D. The original copies of Annexures- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 D and E were also submitted before this Court for scrutiny. Upon careful evaluation, this Court finds these documents to be authentic. Furthermore, these original documents were handed over to the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for independent examination and verification. 7. In light of these critical details, this Court notes with concern that the mandamus previously issued, directing the respondent authorities to act upon the Grant Order obtained by the petitioner’s mother-in-law and to take appropriate steps on the petitioner’s earlier representation, has not been effectively implemented. Instead of complying with the Court’s directions, respondent No.3 – Tahasildar has further complicated the matter, as is evident from the endorsement issued by the Tahasildar, Devanahalli, marked as Annexure-M. 8. A detailed examination of Annexures-B, C, and D unequivocally establishes that the petitioner’s mother-in- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 law was the lawful recipient of the Grant Order issued by the competent authority. This was followed by the issuance of the Saguvali Chit by the then Tahasildar. Furthermore, the petitioner’s mother-in-law’s payment of the premium amount is clearly evidenced by Annexure-D. These documents collectively reinforce the legitimacy of the petitioner’s claim. 9. The petitioner, who asserts her right as the daughter-in-law of the original grantee, has been forced to endure an arduous process, running from one office to another, merely to have her name mutated based on the grant issued to her mother-in-law. It is significant to note that the petitioner’s mother-in-law’s name was duly reflected in the Record of Rights(RTC) following the grant. This further substantiates the validity of the land grant and reinforces the need for appropriate action by the concerned Revenue Authorities. Given the documentary evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim, this Court finds it necessary to issue a positive direction to respondent - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 No.3 – Tahasildar to take immediate and appropriate action. 10. The documents available with the Office of the Tahasildar, Devanahalli, are sufficient to adjudicate the petitioner’s claim. There exists no justifiable reason for respondent No.3 – Tahasildar to delay or refuse to act on the matter. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the petitioner possesses certified copies of the relevant documents, which should enable the Revenue Authorities to act upon these public records and ensure that the petitioner’s rights to the immovable property are not denied due to the unavailability of original records with the Revenue Department. The petitioner’s possession of these crucial documents indicates that the onus is on the Revenue Officials to retrieve or duly consider these records and take necessary steps to restore the names of the legal heirs of the original grantee. Given these substantial records, the petitioner has a valid legal right to seek a writ - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 of mandamus from this Court to compel the respondents to act on her representation dated 08.11.2023. 11. Accordingly, respondent No.3 – Tahasildar is legally obligated to consider the petitioner’s representation in strict adherence to the procedural requirements outlined in Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is well within the authority of the respondents to examine the old RTC records, where the name of the original grantee was duly reflected. Any further delay or reluctance on the part of respondent No.3 – Tahasildar in addressing the petitioner’s rightful claim would amount to a dereliction of duty, warranting intervention from this Court to ensure justice is duly served. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5916 WP No. 928 of 2025 (ii) Respondent No.3 – Tahsildar shall secure the existing records listed in Annexure-N and proceed with the necessary action. (iii) Upon receiving the records in Annexure-N, Respondent No.3 may also consider the certified copies of these orders provided by the petitioner. (iv) After examining the records, Respondent No.3 shall ensure that the petitioner, as the legal heir of the original grantee, is entitled to the katha transfer. (v) The katha transfer process shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27