- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3987 WP No. 27724 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.27724 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SMT.RATNAMMA W/O LATE M.DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS R/AT K.R.SAGARA VILLAGE BELAGOLA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 607 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI.YASHWANTH NETHAJI N T, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE THASILDAR SRIRANGAPATNA SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 607 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.MANJUNATH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER ANNX-B DATED 10.08.2023 SUBMITTED TO HIM ON 11.08.2023 AND MAKE KHATHA IN THE Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3987 WP No. 27724 of 2024 NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE LAND WITHIN A TIME FRAME 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 This captioned writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to consider petitioner's representation dated 10.08.2023, which was submitted on 11.08.2023 and mutate petitioner's name in terms of the decree obtained by the petitioner in O.S.No.77/2018. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. 3. The petitioner filed suit for declaration and injunction against the suit in O.S.No.77/2018. The said suit is decreed by the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2023. The petitioner is declared to be the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3987 WP No. 27724 of 2024 4. Learned HCGP submits that the State is intending to file an appeal and therefore, requests this Court not to grant any indulgence at this juncture. The judgment is rendered on 27.03.2023. The State is yet to prefer an appeal. 5. Be that as it may, once the adjudication is made by the Civil Court and decree is granted, the respondent - Tahasildar is bound to effect changes aligning with the decree rendered by the Civil Court. There is complete inaction on the part of respondent - Tahasildar in not acting on the decree rendered by the Court and mutate the petitioner's name. The petitioner, who has a benefit of the decree in O.S.No.77/2018, has a legal right to seek change of katha and the respondent - Tahasildar is equally obligated to effect change of katha aligning with the decree passed in O.S.No.77/2018. This is a fit case, where mandamus lies. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3987 WP No. 27724 of 2024 6. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The respondent - Tahasildar is hereby directed to mutate the petitioner's name in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No.77/2018. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. (iv) It is needless to mention that the mutation in favour of the petitioner will be subjected to outcome of the appeal in the event the State chooses to file an appeal. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24