- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52203 WP No. 32482 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 32482 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI RAJENDRA SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O C. S. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.113, 'HRISHIK MANE', BEHIND FCI NAL LAYOUT, EAST END MAIN ROAD, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLEGAL TALUK, KOLLEGAL, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571440. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52203 WP No. 32482 of 2025 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571440. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SESHU, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.09.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, BEARING NO.NO.RRT(TA).PRA.SAM/30/24-25, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The present petition has been filed seeking for setting aside of the order at Annexure-C passed by the Tahsildar, where the Tahsildar has directed for maintenance of status-quo regarding katha and refused to accept the request of the petitioner for change of katha. 2. A perusal of the order at Annexure-C would indicate that the report of the Revenue Inspector appears to have referred to absence of permission before selling, in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52203 WP No. 32482 of 2025 light of land coming within the purview of the Land Reforms Act. In light of the said report, matter was taken up as a disputed case and while observing that the land comes within the purview of Land Reforms Act and previous permission was not obtained, the katha as it stood before the representation made by the petitioner was directed to maintained and proceedings closed. 3. Sri. Sathish M. Doddamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once sale deed is produced before the authority relating to acquisition of title, the authorities are bound under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'KLR Act') to effect the revenue records. It is submitted that other aspects touching on the validity of the sale deed cannot be entered into by the revenue authorities. 4. Perused the order passed in W.P.No.22315/2024. Paragraphs No.6 to 10 which are of relevance is extracted below: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52203 WP No. 32482 of 2025 "6. The records do not reveal as to whether the land in question is an Inam land. Even if it is accepted that the land in question is an Inam land, the short question that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether alienation made by the erstwhile owner in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed for want of permission from the Deputy Commissioner will operate as an embargo for the petitioner to get his name mutated to the revenue records. 7. Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act enables any person acquiring right and title over immovable properties either by way of succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage or gift to get his name mutated to the revenue records by reporting the acquisition of right by any one of the modes indicated supra. 8. On reading Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, this Court is of the view that Section 128 does not contemplate and does not confer power on the Revenue Official to examine the correctness of the sale deed. Whether sale deed secured by a person is voidable or void ab initio is a matter, which falls beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. If Revenue Officer, once receives report in regard to acquisition of right under the registered document, he is bound to effect mutation aligning with the conveyance indicated in the registered sale deed. It is, in this background, this Court is of the view that respondent No.2 – Tahasildar and respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner fell in error in examining the validity of the sale deed, which is beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52203 WP No. 32482 of 2025 9. In the order cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, even if a sale deed is obtained in respect of an Inam land without securing permission, this Court has held that the State cannot pass an order of forfeiture if there is any violations of the conditions incorporated while granting or re-granting an Inam land. The Authorities at the most can only impose a penalty of twenty times of land revenue, but they cannot pass an order of forfeiture. 10. In the present case on hand, though it is not the case of order of forfeiture, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner in declining to effect changes in the katha based on the registered documents. The Revenue Authorities have no power to decline to effect changes in katha ignoring the registered documents. Their powers are too limited and are confined to effect changes aligning with the conveyance indicated in the registered documents. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are not sustainable." 5. From the observations extracted above, it is clear that once acquisition of right is placed before the authorities under Section 128 of the KLR Act, the authorities are obliged to effect entries reflecting documents of title and cannot enter into the validity of the document which is a registered sale deed. Such enquiry by the revenue authorities is not contemplated nor is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52203 WP No. 32482 of 2025 permissible. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-C is set aside. 6. Respondent No.2- Tahsildar to take note of the acquisition of rights as placed before the authority and proceed further in terms of Section 128 of the KLR Act to effect revenue entries. 7. Needless to state, no objections could be taken as raised at Annexure-C. The said process to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR