- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4818 WP No. 1617 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1617 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MR. H.C. KRISHNACHARI, S/O CHIKKADODDACHARI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1265, ANEKAL MAIN ROAD PATTAALAMMA LAYOUT, OPP. VIJAYA BANK, JIGANI, BANGALORE - 560 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ENTER/ MUTATE THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN THE RECORD OF RIGHT (RTC) IN TERMS OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.05.2019 IN OS NO. 739/2015 PASSED BY LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL AND ABSOLUTE SALE DEED NO. ANK-1-06835-2019-20 DATED 30.12.2019 EXECUTED IN EX. NO. 39-2019 LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL AT ANNX-A AND B. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4818 WP No. 1617 of 2025 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 petition is filed seeking a mandamus against the respondent - Tahsildar to effect change of khata in terms of decree obtained by petitioner in O.S.No.739/2015, which is one for specific performance of contract followed by a sale deed obtained through Court Commissioner in execution proceedings bearing EX.No.39/2019. 2. It is evident that the respondent Tahsildar has deliberately resisted the petitioner’s rightful claim by insisting on the production of a 11-E sketch, despite the fact that such a requirement is wholly unwarranted in this case. The record clearly establishes that the petitioner has lawfully purchased the entire extent of land in Sy.No.68/P-10, measuring 4.00 acres in its entirety. When an entire survey number or its specific portion with clear boundaries is sold to a single individual without any multiple ownership claims, the insistence on a 11-E sketch is not only legally untenable but also amounts - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4818 WP No. 1617 of 2025 to an arbitrary exercise of power by the revenue authorities. Such an approach is nothing but a means to harass law-abiding citizens, thereby creating unnecessary hurdles in the implementation of decrees passed by competent Civil Courts. 3. The petitioner, having obtained a valid decree in a suit for specific performance (O.S.No.739/2015) and having subsequently acquired a properly executed sale deed dated 30.12.2019 through execution proceedings, possesses an undisputed and absolute title over the said land. Despite these established legal rights, the respondent Tahsildar has failed to act on the petitioner’s representation submitted on 30.12.2024, thereby displaying blatant dereliction of duty. The continued inaction by the revenue authorities amounts to defiance of judicial decrees and a direct violation of the statutory obligations imposed under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 4. The role of revenue officials is to facilitate lawful transactions and uphold judicial orders, not to create artificial impediments that frustrate legitimate landowners. The insistence on a 11-E sketch in cases where an entire extent of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4818 WP No. 1617 of 2025 land is transferred through a valid decree and sale deed is nothing but an abuse of power, causing undue hardship to citizens. Such unwarranted delays not only infringe upon the property rights of individuals but also erode public confidence in the revenue administration. This Court, therefore, deems it necessary to intervene and direct the respondent Tahsildar to immediately process and approve the change of khata in strict conformity with the decree passed in O.S.No.739/2015 and the subsequent sale deed obtained by the petitioner. 5. Given the clear evidence of administrative negligence and unjustified resistance, this Court finds that the respondent Tahsildar’s actions warrant immediate indulgence. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following order: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Tahsildar is hereby directed to mutate petitioner's name to the petition land by taking note of decree passed in O.S.No.739/2015 followed by sale deed dated 30.12.2019. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4818 WP No. 1617 of 2025 (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT: BHK