- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2929 WP No. 8010 of 2024 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. 8010 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K.S. SRINIVAS RAO SON OF LATE SEETHARAM RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 257 4TH CROSS, RAMASWAMY LAYOUT NANJANGUDU - 571 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MEENAKSHI M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR NANJANGUDU TALUK NANJANGUDU-571301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.11.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO EFFECT KHATHA AND PHANI IN THE NAME OF THE Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2929 WP No. 8010 of 2024 PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.119/06 MEASURING 11 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KARLAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUDI TALUK. 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 by the petitioner seeking mandamus against the respondent No.2 (Tahsildar) to consider their representation dated 22.11.2023 vide Annexure - D to effect Khatha and mutate petitioner's name to the land bearing Sy No.119/6 measuring 11 guntas situated at Karlapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjanagudi Taluk. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under, The petitioner has purchased petition land through a registered sale deed dated 01.09.2009. However, an order was subsequently passed by the Assistant Commissioner, whereby the land was forfeited on the ground that the purchase was in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2929 WP No. 8010 of 2024 Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’). Upon further review, the said order of forfeiture was recalled, as evidenced in Annexure-C. The Assistant Commissioner, after obtaining a detailed report from the jurisdictional Tahsildar and verifying all relevant records, concluded that the petitioner was indeed eligible to purchase agricultural land. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner categorically recorded his findings that the sale deed dated 01.09.2009 was in compliance with the provisions of the Act, 1961, and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner directed the second respondent, the Tahsildar, to effect the necessary mutation of the petitioner’s name in the land records in accordance with the sale deed. This order, which was issued on 23.03.2016, remains legally binding and has not been challenged or set aside by any competent authority. 4. Despite the clear and unequivocal directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner in 2016, the respondent No.2 - Tahsildar has failed to act upon the same for an inordinate period of nearly eight years. The inaction on the part of the Tahsildar is not only a clear dereliction of duty but also an arbitrary and unjustified refusal to discharge statutory - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2929 WP No. 8010 of 2024 obligations. The order of the Assistant Commissioner, as reflected in Annexure-C, has attained finality, and there exists no legal impediment to its implementation. The petitioner, having acquired an undisputed legal right under the sale deed dated 01.09.2009, is fully entitled to the restoration of his name in the revenue records. Correspondingly, the Tahsildar is under a mandatory obligation to promptly comply with the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner and effect the mutation as per law. The prolonged inaction on the part of the Tahsildar has caused unwarranted hardship to the petitioner and constitutes a blatant disregard for administrative responsibility. This is a fit case where exemplary costs ought to be imposed on the Tahsildar for his negligence, lack of diligence, and failure to uphold the rule of law. 5. However, learned High Court Government Pleader assured this Court that immediate action will be taken and the authority will ensure that the petitioner's name is recorded in RTC aligning that the sale deed obtained on 01.09.2009. 6. Recording his assurance, this Court passes the following - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2929 WP No. 8010 of 2024 ORDER I) The writ petition is allowed; II) Respondent No.2 - Tahsildar forthwith directed to mutate the name of the petitioner to the petition land by taking note of direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner evidenced at Annexure - C; 7. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Any further inaction on the part of respondent No.2 - Tahsildar will warrant appropriate action. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6