- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8093 WP No. 3458 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.3458 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI A C RANGASWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAPPA AGED 85 YEARS R/AT ANGADIMALLANAHALLI HANUMANAHALLI POST DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU -560001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR-572 101 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8093 WP No. 3458 of 2025 MADHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 5. TAHSILDAR MADHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 5 TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RTC FROM THE YEAR 2000-2001 TILL DATE AS PER MR 04/93-94 IN ANNEXURE-C AND FOR THIS PURPOSE DIRECT THEM TO DO OR CARRY OUT ALL NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO UNDO ANY WRONG DURASTH DONE IN SY.NO.7/8 OF ANGADIMALLANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 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 present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus against respondent Nos.3 and 5, directing them to restore the petitioner's name in the Record of Rights (RTC) as per Mutation Register (MR) No.4/1993-94. The petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8093 WP No. 3458 of 2025 contends that despite his lawful acquisition of the land and the mutation of his name in the RTC, his name was arbitrarily removed during the transition to a computerized RTC system. Furthermore, the petitioner seeks compensation against respondent Nos.3 and 5 for their negligence and failure to ensure the continuity of his name in the RTC, which has caused him undue hardship and legal complications. 2. The matter was heard in detail, with the learned counsel for the petitioner presenting arguments on behalf of the petitioner and the learned HCGP representing the respondents. This court carefully examined the records, documents, and legal contentions advanced by both sides. 3. The petitioner asserts that he is the lawful owner of two parcels of land measuring 1 acre 35 guntas and 5 guntas, respectively, situated in Survey No.7/8. He claims to have purchased these lands from the erstwhile owner through a registered sale deed. The petitioner's name was duly mutated in the RTC pursuant to MR No.4/1993-94, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8093 WP No. 3458 of 2025 and the same was recorded and maintained in the revenue records for several years. The petitioner’s grievance arises from the fact that while his name was reflected in the RTC until 2001-02, it was subsequently deleted without any legal basis or due process, prompting him to file this writ petition seeking redress. 4. Upon a thorough examination of the title documents, it is evident that the petitioner acquired ownership of 1 acre 35 guntas in Survey No.7/8 through a sale deed executed by Ranganathappa and Narayanappa on 31.03.1993, which is documented under Annexure-B. Additionally, the petitioner separately purchased an additional extent of 5 guntas in the same survey number. The legitimacy of these transactions is not disputed, and the sale deeds remain unchallenged to date. 5. The court also examined the present RTC records submitted along with a memo. A significant anomaly was observed, wherein the name of legal heirs of erstwhile owner, who had already sold 1 acre 35 guntas of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8093 WP No. 3458 of 2025 land in Survey No.7/8 to the petitioner, was restored in the RTC under MR No.3/2000-2001. Strangely, while the petitioner’s name continued to be reflected for the 5-gunta parcel, it was inexplicably deleted concerning the 1 acre 35 guntas, despite the petitioner’s lawful ownership and prior mutation entry. 6. The learned HCGP, upon receiving instructions, informed the court that the deletion of the petitioner's name from the RTC was a consequence of a false representation made by the erstwhile owner. Due to this misrepresentation, the revenue authorities erroneously removed the petitioner's name, despite his rightful ownership acquired through a legally valid and registered sale deed. 7. This court took cognizance of the fact that the petitioner's name was originally mutated in the RTC through MR No.4/1993-94 after due consideration of the sale deeds by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The revenue authorities had acted in accordance with the law while - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8093 WP No. 3458 of 2025 effecting the mutation, and the petitioner’s name was accordingly recorded in the RTC. Significantly, neither the mutation order under MR No.4/1993-94 nor the petitioner’s sale deeds have been challenged or annulled by any competent authority or private individual. 8. This court has further noted with concern the laxity on the part of the revenue officials during the transition to computerized RTC records. Despite the petitioner’s lawful acquisition of the land and his name being recorded under MR No.4/1993-94, the revenue authorities arbitrarily deleted his name without initiating any legal proceedings to set aside the mutation. The fact that the petitioner’s name continues to be reflected for the 5-gunta portion while being omitted for the 1 acre 35 guntas demonstrates a clear inconsistency and administrative lapse. 9. Furthermore, the court is of the view that the actions of the revenue officials, in collusion with the erstwhile owner, led to the illegal restoration of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8093 WP No. 3458 of 2025 vendor’s legal heirs’ names in the RTC, directly contravening the provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue (KLR) Act. These sections mandate that any change in land records must be carried out only upon lawful conveyance and due process. By removing the petitioner’s name from the RTC without setting aside MR No.4/1993-94 in a legally recognized manner, the revenue authorities have acted beyond their jurisdiction, creating unnecessary litigation and hardship for the petitioner. Such actions not only undermine the sanctity of the land records system but also embolden fraudulent claims over lawfully acquired property, leading to severe legal and financial implications for rightful landowners. The court finds that the revenue officials' actions amount to an abuse of power and a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law, necessitating strict corrective measures. 10. In light of the above facts, the court acknowledges that the petitioner, having legally acquired - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8093 WP No. 3458 of 2025 title over the disputed land through a registered sale deed, possesses an undeniable legal right to seek appropriate relief. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 have a corresponding duty to verify and secure the original records, particularly MR No.4/1993-94, and take necessary action to rectify the revenue records by restoring the petitioner’s name in the RTC for the 1 acre 35 guntas in Survey No.7/8. 11. The learned HCGP, in response, assured the court that the petitioner’s name would be restored in the RTC upon verification of the title documents and mutation records under MR No.4/1993-94. In view of this assurance and the clear legal position, the court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to take immediate corrective measures. Accordingly, the court proceeds to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8093 WP No. 3458 of 2025 (ii) Respondent Nos.3 and 5 are hereby directed to restore the petitioner's name in the RTC from the year 2000-2001 to the present date, as per MR No.4/1993-94. (iii) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iv) A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for necessary action against erring officials. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34