- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2959 WP No. 1517 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.1517 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT.ERAKKA W/O LATE OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT B.K.PALYA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI YALAHANKA TALUK-562157 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI.BHADRINATH R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-3 BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560009 3. THE TAHSILDAR YALAHANKA TALUK Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2959 WP No. 1517 of 2025 YALAHANKA-560 064 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR YALAHANKA TALUK YALAHANKA-560 064 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE R3 AND R4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/03/2024 MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-J 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 captioned writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the representation dated 19.03.2024 as per Annexure-J and implement the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2-Special Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-H. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2959 WP No. 1517 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. 3. The petitioner was granted petition land bearing Sy. No.7 totally measuring 4 acres situated at B.K.Palya Village, Jala Hobli, Yalahanka Taluk vide Grant Order dated 29.08.1975. The petitioner’s grant was subjected to enquiry before respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner exercising power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has conducted a detailed enquiry and has now come to the conclusion that the grant made in favour of the petitioner is genuine, which is evidenced at Annexure-H. 4. Despite the grant being upheld as valid by the competent authority vide order dated 04.03.2024, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have exhibited complete negligence and lack of accountability by failing to restore the petitioner’s name to the RTC. This deliberate inaction persists even though respondent No.2 — the Special - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2959 WP No. 1517 of 2025 Deputy Commissioner has unequivocally directed the Tahasildar to mutate the petitioner’s name in accordance with the findings of the enquiry. The conduct of respondent Nos.3 and 4 reflects a clear dereliction of duty, as their inaction has caused unwarranted delay and deprived the petitioner of her rightful entitlements. When the grant’s validity has already been adjudicated and upheld by the competent authority, any further delay by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is not only unjustifiable but also undermines the principles of administrative responsibility and justice. 5. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were duty-bound to immediately act upon the direction issued by respondent No.2 — the Special Deputy Commissioner and ensure the restoration of the petitioner’s name to the RTC without delay. Their failure to do so constitutes a blatant disregard for their statutory obligations and the petitioner’s legal rights. The petitioner, having a legally recognized right to seek the restoration of her name, has been compelled to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2959 WP No. 1517 of 2025 endure undue hardship solely due to the indifference and inaction of these authorities. Such laxness not only erodes public trust in the administrative machinery but also highlights a concerning lack of accountability in discharging official duties. Given these circumstances, this case unequivocally warrants the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Nos.3 and 4 to comply with the lawful orders of respondent No.2 and restore the petitioner’s name to the RTC without further delay. The authorities’ inaction must be strongly condemned to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice is delivered promptly. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to take cognizance of the order passed by respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2959 WP No. 1517 of 2025 evidenced at Annexure-H forthwith and restore the petitioner’s name to the RTC pertaining to the petition land. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. (iv) In the event respondent Nos.3 and 4 notice that there is any mismatch, they shall forthwith secure appropriate orders at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner and then proceed to mutate the petitioner’s name to the RTC. (v) If such clarification is sought by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Assistant Commissioner shall ensure that this mismatch, if any, shall be rectified within a period of three months by the Assistant Commissioner. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35