- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4392 WP No. 1185 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.1185 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT.V.PADMA D/O LATE VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS KARIYAPPALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR-563125 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101 3. THE TAHSILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR-563125 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4392 WP No. 1185 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO MAKE ENTRIES IN THE RTC PERTAINING TO LAND BEARING SY. NO.128 OF KARIYAPPALLI VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK MEASURING 3 ACRES 15 GUNTAS AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/06/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO R3 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 writ petition is filed seeking mandamus against respondent No.3 - Tahasildar to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2020 as per Annexure-A and to restore the petitioner's name in the light of the decree obtained by the petitioner's uncle in O.S.No.47/1995. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA. 3. The petitioner has submitted a formal representation, attaching the decree passed by the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4392 WP No. 1185 of 2025 competent Civil Court in O.S. No.47/1995. In the said suit, filed by the petitioner's uncle, the Civil Court rendered its judgment and decree on 11.06.1999, wherein the petitioner's uncle was declared to be the absolute owner of the land in question. The decree, passed by a competent jurisdictional Civil Court, is of paramount importance as it conclusively determines the ownership rights over the subject land. The decree is not merely a statement of fact, but a legal pronouncement that has the effect of transferring title and ownership to the petitioner's uncle. Importantly, the decree was passed following due process of law, and there was no contest or opposition raised to the suit. Therefore, the decree stands as a valid and binding judgment, establishing the petitioner's uncle’s absolute ownership. 4. It is critical to understand that once a decree is obtained from a competent Civil Court, as in the case of O.S. No.47/1995, it must be given full effect by all concerned authorities, including the Revenue Authorities. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4392 WP No. 1185 of 2025 The Revenue Authorities do not have the discretion to disregard or ignore the decree passed by the Court, as doing so would undermine the very foundation of judicial determinations. The rights acquired through such a decree are recognized under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, particularly under Sections 128, 129 and 135, which govern the transfer of land rights and the procedure for recording such changes in land ownership. These sections clearly mandate that once ownership is legally established through a decree of the competent Civil Court, the jurisdictional Tahasildar, in this case, Respondent No. 3, is duty-bound to give effect to such a decree and update the records accordingly. In the present case, the inaction on the part of the jurisdictional Tahasildar to implement the decree constitutes a clear dereliction of duty, and as such, this is a fit case where a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel Respondent No. 3 to perform his legal obligation in accordance with the Civil Court’s decree. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4392 WP No. 1185 of 2025 5. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.3 - Tahasildar is hereby directed to consider the representation dated 03.06.2020 as per Annexure-A and shall take cognizance of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.47/1995 and mutate the petitioner's uncle name in the owner's column strictly adhering to the procedure contemplated under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31