- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8171 WP No. 1201 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. PRATHIK JAIN .V S/O LATE. VINODKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDENT 28, 2ND FLOOR LAKSHMIVALLABHA PARSHWANATH ENCLAVE AJAD MILL ROAD, MAHAVEERANAGARA CHITHRADURGA TOWN-577 501. 2. KHUSHI JAIN D/O P. DILIP NAHAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDENT OF MAHAVEER CLOTH CENTRE NEAR KRISHNA NURSING HOME CHITHRADURGA TOWN-577 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT., M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101. 3. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISSION TUMAKURU-572 101. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8171 WP No. 1201 of 2025 4. THE THASILDAR SIRA TALUK, SIRA TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 216. 5. REVENUE INSPECTOR MUDIGERE KAVAL KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN PROCEEDINGS IN R.R.T.(A)(S)273/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3, HEREIN THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI AND ON THE FILE OF TAHSILDAR THE RESPONDENT NO.4., QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.11.2024, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB- DIVISION, MADHUGIRI IN R.R.T.(A)(S)273/2024, AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the endorsement issued by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner who has declined to mutate the petitioners' name acting on the sale deed on the ground that granted land is sought to be sold - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8171 WP No. 1201 of 2025 by the grantees in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. 2. This Court vide order dated 1.2.2025 had called upon respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner to offer an explanation for having failed to act on the sale deed, which was preceded by an enquiry under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "PTCL Act"). Today, an explanation is tendered before this Court and the Assistant Commissioner while offering an explanation has brought to the notice of this Court that the permission obtained by the grantee was not placed before him, which is effectively countered by the petitioners on the ground that the permission copy was enclosed along with the sale deed. 3. Be that as it may, Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short "KLR Act, 1964") does not authorise the Assistant Commissioner or the jurisdictional Tahsildar to examine the validity of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8171 WP No. 1201 of 2025 registered document. Time and again, this Court in catena of judgments has held that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to examine the genuineness of registered document, more particularly, the registered sale deed. The explanation of the Assistant Commissioner that while seeking change of mutation, petitioner had not enclosed the copy of the permission secured by the grantee from the Government is also not plausible and this Court is not inclined to accept the said explanation. Even in absence of permission under Section 4(2) of PTCL Act, the revenue authorities are under bounden duty to act in terms of the mandate provided under Section 128 of the KLR Act, 1964. 4. Once acquisition of right in immovable property is reported, more particularly, based on registered sale deed, in terms of Section 128 of the KLR Act, 1964, the revenue authorities are under bounden duty to immediately give effect to the sale deed transactions and reflect the name of the transferee strictly adhering to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8171 WP No. 1201 of 2025 mandate provided under Section 128 of the KLR Act, 1964. 5. In the case on hand, the petitioners' vendor namely the grantee has secured permission which is evidenced at Annexure-E, which is dated 24.1.2012. In the light of the permission secured by the grantee, this Court is of the view that there is no further scope to hold an enquiry in regard to the violation under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Once, permission is secured under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, the revenue officials are bound to mutate the name of the transferee. Therefore, this is a fit case where mandamus lies since petitioners have a legal right to seek mandamus at the hands of this Court. Respondents are equally obligated to take cognizance of the registered sale deed as well as the permission granted by the Government on 24.1.2012, which is evidenced at Annexure-E. This is a fit case where mandamus lies. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8171 WP No. 1201 of 2025 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondents 3 and 4 are hereby directed to forthwith mutate the name of the petitioners in the RTC pertaining to the petition land. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42