- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1731 WP No. 32328 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 32328 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H. SIDDHESHAPPA S/O HANUMANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS AGRICULTURIST GOPALA VILLAGE, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT, PIN-577 228. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA REVENUE DEPARTMENT BENGALURU-02. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKMAGALURU-577 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN-577 228. 4. THE TAHASILDAR TARIKERE TALUK Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1731 WP No. 32328 of 2024 CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN-577 228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 AND THE CONCERNED REVENUE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 25.09.2023, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D 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 Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not reflecting the petitioner's name in the ownership column pursuant to computerization of RTC. The petitioner to substantiate his right in the property claims that this land is granted to him and pursuant to grant his name was mutated in the revenue records and continued till 1998 to 2002. Pursuant to computerization, the petitioner's name is not reflected in RTC. If there is a grant in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner's name - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1731 WP No. 32328 of 2024 was duly mutated to the revenue records based on the grant order, the petitioner has a legal right to seek direction against the respondents. The respondents are equally obligated to rectify the computerized RTC by strictly aligning to the manual RTC entries maintained by revenue authorities coupled with the grant order in favour of the petitioner. Since there is inaction on the part of respondents, this is a fit case where a mandamus lies. 3. For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondent No.4 - Tahasildar is hereby directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.09.2023 and mutate the name of the petitioner in computerized RTC to the extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.19/P3 situated at Gopala Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chikmagaluru District taking cognizance of existing manual RTC records and all other relevant documents. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1731 WP No. 32328 of 2024 iii. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4