- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2571 WP No. 27760 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 27760 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATH, S/O. SRI KADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 206, 3RD WARD, SANTHE BEEDHI, DOMMASANDRA, BANGALORE-562 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGESH S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BENGALURU-562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH K, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO TAKE TIMELY ACTION ON THE APPLICATION DATED Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2571 WP No. 27760 of 2024 09.07.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A 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 In the caption petition, petitioner alleges inaction on the part of respondent No.3 - Tahsildar in not passing orders on application dated 09.07.2024 evidenced at Annexure-A and B. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondents-State. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: Subject matter of the petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.39, situated at Chambenahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. Petitioner's father submitted an application in prescribed form seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation. The Committee recommended to regularize petitioner's father's unauthorised occupation over Sy.No.39 which is evidenced - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2571 WP No. 27760 of 2024 at Annexure-C dated 06.11.1968. Consequently, the jurisdictional Tahsildar following the mandate as per sub-clause (3) of Section 108 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 issued Grant Certificate. Followed by these two crucial documents, petitioner's father's name was duly mutated to the revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.39. 4. After the demise of the original grantee, petitioner's name was mutated to the revenue records. Petitioner is aggrieved by arbitrary action of the revenue authorities in not carrying forward the petitioner's name to Sy.No.39 after introduction of computerization of RTC. Therefore, the writ petition is filed annexing all the requisite documents requesting the authorities to restore petitioner's name. 5. Learned HCGP on instructions submits that no such application is submitted and therefore, the authorities had no occasion to consider the petitioner's application. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2571 WP No. 27760 of 2024 6. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly establish that the petitioner is entitled to relief in this matter. The records indicate that the land in question was initially granted to the petitioner's father and that a valid grant certificate was issued, which is corroborated by the documents annexed as Annexure-C and Annexure-D. Despite the petitioner's father’s name being mutated in the revenue records during his lifetime, the necessary steps to reflect the mutation of the petitioner's name following his father’s demise have not been undertaken. 7. The petitioner has made earnest efforts to bring the matter to the attention of the concerned authorities. The Committee's recommendation, as evidenced in Annexure-C, unequivocally supports the petitioner’s claim and confirms the validity of the grant made to the petitioner's father. Annexure-D further substantiates the existence of a valid grant certificate. In light of these documents, it is evident that the omission to mutate the petitioner’s name in the RTC is a clear procedural lapse on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2571 WP No. 27760 of 2024 the part of the revenue authorities. This Court, therefore, finds that the petitioner’s claim is well-founded and that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is warranted to direct the jurisdictional authorities to rectify the records and grant appropriate relief. 8. For the reasons stated above, this Court passes the following: i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondent No. 3, the Tahsildar, is directed to treat this writ petition as a representation and take cognizance of the recommendation made by the Committee, annexed as Annexure-C, as well as the Grant Certificate issued in Form No. 1, annexed as Annexure-D. Based on these documents, Respondent No. 3 shall issue appropriate orders and take all necessary steps to restore the petitioner's name in the RTC, clearly reflecting the original grant made to the petitioner's father. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2571 WP No. 27760 of 2024 iii. Respondent No. 3 shall also ensure that, after restoring the name of the petitioner's father in the revenue records, the petitioner's name is mutated in accordance with the law, in recognition of his rightful succession to the land in question. iv. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copies of the writ papers from the office of the Advocate General. The Advocate General's office is directed to ensure that the writ papers are forwarded forthwith to the jurisdictional Tahsildar for further action. NP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE