- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21573 WP No. 15508 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15508 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HIRANYAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VAIBHAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - TAHSILDAR, CHINTHAMANI Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21573 WP No. 15508 of 2025 TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT TO INSERT/EFFECT THE PODDED SURVEY NUMBER IN COMPUTERIZED RECORD OF RIGHT (RTC) IN PETITIONER NAME IN RESPECT OF OLD SY.NO.44, NEW SY.NO.229 (WHICH WAS RE-NUMBERED AFTER CONDUCTING PODI AND DURASTH) IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING 4.00 ACRES SITUATED AT HIRANYAPALALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHINTHAMANI TALUK AS PER VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND C1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to effect phodi in respect of the Sy. No.44 (new Sy.No.229) as reflected in the RTC extracts. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21573 WP No. 15508 of 2025 4. It is evident from the writ petition that the petitioner has not approached the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. In that view of the matter, a writ of mandamus is not maintainable at this stage as there is no demand and refusal by the respondent-authorities. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority, if so advised, in accordance with law. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27