- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1381 WP No. 33000 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.33000 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.D.S.VENKATESH S/O D.M.SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.146/11, 7TH CROSS COCONUT AVENUE ROAD SREERAMA SAMUDAYA BHAVANA MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003. REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER SRI. P.NAGARAJ S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.30/31, 17TH CROSS M.T.S. LAYOUT KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BENGALURU - 560 060 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1381 WP No. 33000 of 2024 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-3 BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION DISTRICT OFFICE COMPOUND BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 009 4. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO TRANSFER THE REVENUE ENTRY IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER, IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION, PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2024 IN CASE NO.RRT(2)/N(A)CR/3/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-H 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 In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner is seeking mandamus against respondent No.3 to restore the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1381 WP No. 33000 of 2024 revenue entries in the name of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner-3 evidenced at Annexure-H. 2. The subject matter of the petition is an agricultural land bearing old Sy. No.31 with newly assigned Sy. No.151 measuring to an extent of 4 acres situated at Kodigehalli Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioner is tracing title through his mother - Smt.Rukminiyamma, who was originally granted the petition land vide order dated 01.09.1979. The petitioner is also asserting title over the agricultural land bearing old Sy. No.88 with newly assigned new Sy. No.148 measuring to an extent of 4 acres situated at Kodigehalli Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk based on the grant in his favour. 3. On a thorough examination of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, evidenced at Annexure-H, it is unequivocally clear that the grants made - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1381 WP No. 33000 of 2024 in favour of the petitioner's mother and the petitioner with respect to the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 151 and 148 were subjected to detailed enquiry by a competent authority under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Special Deputy Commissioner, after due consideration of the matter, concluded that both grants are genuine. This determination, made by a senior revenue authority vested with the requisite powers, ought to have been sufficient to guide subordinate revenue authorities in taking swift and appropriate action. However, despite this clear finding, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have inexplicably failed to restore the petitioner's name in the RTC for the said lands. The continued inaction of these subordinate authorities, even in the face of a categorical order from their superior officer, raises serious concerns about the functioning and accountability within the revenue administration. 4. This case highlights a disturbing pattern of harassment faced by citizens at the hands of revenue - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1381 WP No. 33000 of 2024 authorities. When the genuineness of the grant has been thoroughly examined and affirmed by a competent authority such as the Special Deputy Commissioner, it defies logic and reason as to why subordinate revenue authorities refuse to act in accordance with the law. The failure of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to discharge their duties in compliance with the binding order of the Special Deputy Commissioner not only reflects a lack of diligence but also points to a systemic failure within the revenue machinery. Such conduct raises questions about whether these authorities are truly committed to serving the public or are merely perpetuating bureaucratic inefficiency. Their inaction requires deeper introspection, as it undermines the principles of justice and fair administration. While this Court refrains from imposing costs at this stage, it is only on the assurance given by the learned High Court Government Pleader that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 will promptly take cognizance of the order at Annexure-H and restore the petitioner's name to the RTC records for both lands without any further delay. The Court hopes that such - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1381 WP No. 33000 of 2024 instances of unwarranted inaction will serve as a wake-up call for the revenue authorities to introspect and ensure that they fulfill their statutory duties diligently and without unnecessary obstruction. 5. Recording the assurance given by the learned HCGP, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to forthwith restore the petitioner's name by taking cognizance of the order passed by respondent No.2 - the Special Deputy Commissioner - 3 evidenced at Annexure-H. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1381 WP No. 33000 of 2024 (iv) Learned HCGP shall forward copy to the Deputy Commissioner. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24