- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:448 WP No. 23751 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23751 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: HUSSAINSAB, SON OF LATE NIASAB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MUCHCHNURU VILLAGE, TALUK: JAGALURU, DISTRICT: DAVANAGERE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 4. THE THAHASILDAR, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:448 WP No. 23751 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE R-1 AND 2 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN PURSUANCE OF THE REPRESENTATION / COMPLAINT DATED 22.11.2023, PRODUCED AT ANNX-H AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY 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 The petitioner is seeking a mandamus against respondents No.1 and 2 to take action on the representation/complaint dated 22.11.2023, vide Annexure-H and pass appropriate orders. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the revenue officials in altering the revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.54. The petitioner alleges that though the petition land measures 12 acres, which is evidenced at Annexure-B wherein the extent is shown as 12 acres 3 guntas, the latest RTC reveals that Sy.No.54/1 hardly - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:448 WP No. 23751 of 2024 measures 2 acres 3 guntas. Therefore, a detailed representation/complaint was registered with the Deputy Commissioner calling him to look into the matter and issue appropriate directions to the subordinate revenue officials to preserve records relating to Sy.No.54/1. 3. Learned AGA, on instructions, submits that the requisite mutations which were sought to be issued are served on the petitioner by the office of the Tahsildar. However, learned AGA would bring to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is seeking the copies of some mutations which are not available in the records, which are of the year 1937-38. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. Perused the records. 5. On meticulous examination of the records, it is forthcoming that the petitioner has already approached the civil court by filing a suit in O.S.No.51/2023. The said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:448 WP No. 23751 of 2024 suit is a comprehensive suit and the same is pending consideration before the competent civil court. 6. Upon a careful examination of the representation submitted by the petitioner, as reflected in Annexure-H, this Court observes that the prayer made therein lacks clarity and precision. The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), upon instructions, submits that the requisite mutations sought by the petitioner have already been served by the office of the Tahsildar. However, the learned AGA further apprises this Court that the petitioner is now seeking copies of certain mutations that purportedly date back to the years 1937-38, which, as per the records available with the authorities, are not traceable. It is a settled principle of law that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the performance of an impossible act. If the documents sought by the petitioner are not available in the official records, no cause for issuing a writ of mandamus arises. The petitioner must understand that the relief under such extraordinary - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:448 WP No. 23751 of 2024 jurisdiction is contingent upon the existence of enforceable duties and the feasibility of compliance by the respondent authorities. 7. The request for the document in question is overly vague and fails to establish its relevance or material connection to the matter at hand. It is a well-established principle that a party seeking judicial intervention must present a specific and substantiated request, clearly outlining the necessity and pertinence of the relief sought. In the present case, the absence of such clarity renders the petitioner’s prayer untenable in its current form, making it difficult for this Court to ascertain the purpose or necessity of the document being sought. 8. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner is not without recourse. If the petitioner believes that a particular document is essential for substantiating his case, he is at liberty to obtain it through the appropriate legal channels. Additionally, if necessary, the petitioner may also seek to summon the relevant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:448 WP No. 23751 of 2024 document as evidence in pending suit by invoking the provisions of CPC, for issuing a witness summons. However, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of this Article is limited to ensuring procedural propriety and correcting jurisdictional errors, and the present circumstances do not warrant such an indulgence. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK CT: BHK