- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6043 WP No. 32410 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 32410 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. ESHWARA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE RAME GOWDA, R/O HULIKALLU SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK - 573 102, HASSAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANTHA KUMAR K.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRSENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA - 573 127. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ARAKALGUDU TALUK, ARAKALGUDU - 573 102, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6043 WP No. 32410 of 2024 HASSAN DISTRICT. …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 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION/APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10.06.2023 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO RESTORE THE FATHER NAME OF THE PETITIONER NAME IN THE RTC TO THE LANDS BEARING SY NO. 4/5 MEASURING 0.35 GUNTAS AND SY NO. 4/6 MEASURING 0.27 GUNTAS SITUATED AT HULIKALLU SIDDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DIST RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNX-F. 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 petition is filed alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.4-Tahasildar in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2023 and restoring the petitioner's father's name in the RTC pertaining to the petition lands. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6043 WP No. 32410 of 2024 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner contends that his late father lawfully acquired ownership of the lands in question through a registered sale deed executed on 28.01.1980. Following this transaction, his father’s name was duly recorded in the Record of Rights (RTC) as the legitimate owner, in accordance with the registered sale deed. However, after his father’s demise, the petitioner observed a discrepancy in the RTC records following the implementation of the computerized system. Specifically, his father’s name, which had been properly reflected in the earlier manually maintained records, was not carried forward in the newly digitized RTC. This omission has created legal and procedural difficulties for the petitioner and his family, as they seek to establish their rightful claim over the property. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a formal representation to the concerned authorities, requesting rectification of the RTC to ensure - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6043 WP No. 32410 of 2024 that his father's name is reinstated in accordance with the registered sale deed. 4. Upon a thorough examination of the records and facts presented, this Court finds that there has been an apparent lapse and inaction on the part of respondent No.4—Tahasildar. The records clearly establish that the petitioner's father’s name was duly entered in the RTC based on the registered sale deed dated 28.01.1980, and there existed no legal or procedural basis for its omission. The failure to carry forward his father’s name in the digitized RTC appears to be an administrative oversight rather than a justified exclusion. The petitioner's rightful claim, supported by documentary evidence, necessitates prompt corrective action by the concerned revenue authorities. In such circumstances, it becomes the statutory duty of respondent No.4—Tahasildar to address the petitioner’s grievance expeditiously. Given that the petitioner’s family derives title from a validly executed registered sale deed, the omission must be rectified - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6043 WP No. 32410 of 2024 without undue delay. The inaction on the part of the respondent constitutes a clear case of administrative negligence, warranting immediate intervention to ensure that the rightful ownership is properly reflected in the RTC records. 5. However, learned HCGP, on instructions, assure that respondent No.4-Tahasildar will forthwith act on the representation subject to production of certified copy of the sale deed by the petitioner. 6. Recording the assurance given by the learned HCGP, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The petitioner is hereby directed to furnish the certified copy of the sale deed obtained by this father; iii. Respondent No.4-Tahasildar, on receipt of copy of the sale deed, shall forthwith take - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6043 WP No. 32410 of 2024 action and restore the petitioner's father's name in the RTC. iv. It is also needless to mention that the Tahasildar, after restoring the petitioner's father's name, shall further effect changes by way of inheritance katha and mutate the petitioner's name; v. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the sale deed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 CT: BHK