- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1638 WP No. 35757 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. 35757 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PRAKASH S.G, S/O. LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT BIAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BAGALUR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 149. 2. SMT. RATNAMMA, W/O LATE GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT BIAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BAGALUR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 149. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MUNIRAJA M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL. TALUK), Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1638 WP No. 35757 of 2024 YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE R-2 TAHSILDAR TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATE D 26.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNX-A FOR TRANSFER OF KHATHA WITH RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY NO. 81 MEASURING 2 ACRES OUT OF 5 ACRES 36 GUNTAS SITUATED AT BIPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER JOINTLY 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 petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No.2-Tahsildar in not considering the petitioners' representation dated 26.10.2017, wherein a request is made by the petitioners seeking transfer of katha pertaining to the petition land bearing Sy.No.81 measuring 2 acres, totally measuring 5 acres 36 guntas, situated at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1638 WP No. 35757 of 2024 Biappanahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North taluk, Bengaluru District. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: The land in question was originally owned by one C.K. Shanta Bai, who executed a registered sale deed on 19.05.1964, transferring 2 acres of land in favor of the petitioner No.1's father, namely Gundappa, and the father- in-law of petitioner No.2. Pursuant to the sale deed, the name of petitioner No.1's father, Gundappa, was duly entered into the Record of Rights in Column No.12. However, despite the lawful transfer of ownership, the corresponding entry in Column No.9, reflecting the transfer of title, was not updated. This oversight created a discrepancy in the revenue records, causing legal and administrative complications for the petitioners. After the demise of petitioner No.1's father, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.2- Tahsildar on 26.10.2017, seeking to rectify the record by updating the katha in alignment with the registered sale - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1638 WP No. 35757 of 2024 deed. The representation was accompanied by a certified copy of the sale deed and RTC documents to substantiate their claim. However, despite the passage of significant time, respondent No.2-Tahsildar has failed to take any action on the representation, leaving the petitioners without recourse to address the anomaly. 3. Petitioner No.1 derives his title from his father, Gundappa, who acquired the 2 acres of land in Survey No.81, which forms part of a total extent of 5 acres and 36 guntas. The registered sale deed of 1964 unequivocally establishes the ownership rights of petitioner No.1's father. Given this clear chain of title, respondent No.2- Tahsildar is under a legal obligation to take cognizance of the sale deed, process the necessary documentation, and ensure that the katha is updated to reflect the rightful ownership. It is evident from the circumstances of this case that respondent No.2-Tahsildar has demonstrated a lack of diligence and accountability by failing to act upon - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1638 WP No. 35757 of 2024 the petitioners' legitimate request for the rectification of the revenue records. 4. During the proceedings, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) submitted that the authority to change the katha post-2007 is vested with the Assistant Commissioner. However, this Court is unable to accept this argument, as the sale deed in question dates back to the year 1964. The authority to consider and process the change of katha arising from such an old transaction is clearly within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2- Tahsildar. Even if administrative approval from the Assistant Commissioner is required, it is incumbent upon respondent No.2-Tahsildar to initiate the process by seeking such approval and taking appropriate steps to update the revenue records. Respondent No.2-Tahsildar cannot use administrative requirements as a pretext to delay or deny the petitioners their rightful relief. The action required under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is mandatory and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1638 WP No. 35757 of 2024 leaves no room for discretion in such cases where a registered sale deed unequivocally establishes ownership. 5. Both petitioners have a legitimate claim to seek the correction of the katha. Petitioner No.1 traces his title through his father, Gundappa, while petitioner No.2 derives her claim through her father-in-law, who was the co-purchaser of the land in 1964. The rights of the petitioners, as successors-in-interest, are firmly rooted in the registered sale deed, which serves as conclusive evidence of their ownership. Respondent No.2-Tahsildar had a clear obligation to act on the petitioners' representation submitted in 2017. The inordinate delay in addressing the petitioners' grievances highlights a failure on the part of the authorities to discharge their statutory duties. In light of these circumstances, the Court finds this to be an appropriate case for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No.2-Tahsildar to take immediate and necessary action to update the katha in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1638 WP No. 35757 of 2024 accordance with the sale deed and applicable legal provisions. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. Respondent No.2-Tahsildar, shall forthwith consider the representation dated 26.10.2017 evidenced at Annexure-A and shall pass appropriate orders and ensure that the petitioners name is mutated to the RTC in respect of petition land; iii. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: BHK