- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2953 WP No. 34063 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.34063 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: K.RAMAIAH SON OF LATE SRI.KADARAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT MALLASANDRA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI-562162 BENGALURU NORTH TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SRI.NANJUNDARADHYA B G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 5TH FLOOR, MS BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU -560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU-560009 3. THAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU-560009 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2953 WP No. 34063 of 2024 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR DASANAPURA HOBLI-562162 BENGALURU NORTH TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER IN R.A.NO. 116/2021-22 VIDE ANNX-A PETITION FILED DTD 24.03.2021 AND PASS SUITABLE ORDERS AT THE EARLIEST 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 The captioned writ petition is filed seeking direction against respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner to decide the proceedings pending in RA No.116/2021-22 vide Annexure-A. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2953 WP No. 34063 of 2024 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by inconsistent entries at column 3 and 9 of RTC pertaining to the land bearing Sy. No.108 (Old Sy. No.36) measuring 1 acre 33 guntas of Mallasandra Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. 4. The petitioner, by way of this rectification request, has approached this Hon'ble Court through an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, seeking timely and appropriate redressal of the grievance. It is evident that Respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, has a mandatory statutory duty to address and resolve the grievances of citizens, especially in matters concerning the correction of errors in the Revenue Tribunal Register (RTC). However, despite the appeal being filed as far back as 2021-22, the concerned authorities have failed to take any decisive action on the matter. Even when errors in the RTC are specifically brought to their attention, the authorities take an inordinate amount of time often spanning two to three - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2953 WP No. 34063 of 2024 years to arrive at a decision, thereby causing undue delay and hardship to the petitioner. The authorities are obligated under law to pass appropriate and timely orders to rectify any errors reflected in the RTC. The prolonged inaction and failure to resolve these basic issues in a reasonable timeframe are in clear violation of the statutory mandates governing such proceedings. 5. The present case starkly highlights the evident and inexcusable laxity on the part of Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner. The inordinate delay in the disposal of the appeal and the failure to rectify the RTC entries as requested demonstrates a dereliction of duty that cannot be overlooked. The issues at hand pertain to very trivial but important matters of correcting clerical errors in the RTC, which should have been dealt with expeditiously. The failure of Respondent No. 2 to take any action or issue a decision on the appeal, despite the lapse of significant time, reflects a serious lapse in the discharge of statutory responsibilities and undermines the purpose of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2953 WP No. 34063 of 2024 providing prompt relief to aggrieved landowners. Such negligence should not be tolerated, as it frustrates the legal rights of the petitioner, who is entitled to prompt and effective redress under the law. 6. As the rightful owner of the land in question, the petitioner is legally entitled to seek correction of the errors reflected in the RTC. The Assistant Commissioner, as the designated authority under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, is duty-bound to adjudicate on the appeal and pass appropriate orders. However, the failure to do so not only causes undue hardship to the petitioner but also reflects poorly on the functioning of the concerned authorities. Given the delay, inaction, and failure to discharge statutory duties, it is reasonable and justified to impose suitable costs on Respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, to deter such inexcusable delays in future. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) submits that Respondent No.2 is now prepared to pass the appropriate orders. This response, though, does - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2953 WP No. 34063 of 2024 not absolve Respondent No.2 from accountability for the considerable delay and the absence of any corrective action thus far. 7. Since learned AGA has assured this Court that the appeal will be decided in accordance with law, by taking lenient view, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner is hereby directed to decide the appeal pending in R.A.No.116/2021-22 as per Annexure-A in accordance with law. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. (iv) Failing which, appropriate contempt proceedings shall be initiated against respondent No.2–Assistant Commissioner. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26