- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2435 OF 2026 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: MR. GIRISH KUMAR B V AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE MR.VEERANNA RESIDENT OF BASARIHALLI VILLAGE, HUNJUNALU POST, SIRA TALUK, TUMKURU- 572128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B., MARUTHI TOWERS, I FLOOR BESIDE SIT COLLEGE, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 BH ROAD, TUMUKURU- 572103. 2. THE TAHSHILDER, SIRA TALUK 572137, TUMKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R2; SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27- 10-2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 ORAL ORDER In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner seeks twin reliefs against the respondent authorities. The petitioner traces his right, title and interest over the land in question through his father, contending that the property was originally granted in favour of his father by the competent authority. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his father was cultivating and enjoying the granted land and that his name was duly reflected in the revenue records. However, with the advent of computerisation of the revenue records, the petitioner asserts that his father’s name came to be inadvertently deleted from the revenue entries. It is further contended that, in the interregnum, the land in question has also been acquired by respondent No.1–authority for a public purpose. In that backdrop, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 27.10.2025 requesting respondent No.2–Tahasildar to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 restore the name of his father in the revenue records and thereafter take consequential steps to recognise the petitioner as the legal heir. The petitioner has also sought a further direction against respondent No.1– authority to release and disburse the compensation determined in respect of the acquired land. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.1–authority and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. Perused the material placed on record. 3. The records indicate that the petitioner has addressed a detailed representation dated 27.10.2025 to the respondent authorities requesting restoration of the name of his father in the revenue records and for consequential consideration of his claim as the legal heir entitled to compensation. However, the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 representation has remained unattended and unconsidered, which has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner traces his right through his father based on a grant made by the competent authority, the same being evidenced by the document produced at Annexure–B. Now that the land has already been acquired, the relief sought by the petitioner is essentially twofold: firstly, restoration of his father’s name in the revenue records in respect of the land in question, and secondly, upon recognition of such entry, determination of the legal heirs of the deceased grantee and mutation of the petitioner’s name as a Class–I heir, so as to enable him to claim the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 4. This Court finds that the petitioner’s grievance primarily relates to inaction on the part of respondent No.2–Tahasildar in not examining the representation and in not conducting an enquiry in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the revenue laws. When a representation is made seeking correction or restoration of revenue entries, particularly when the claim is supported by a grant order issued by the competent authority, the Tahasildar is duty-bound to examine the claim, conduct an appropriate enquiry, and pass orders in accordance with law. In the present case, the complete inaction and administrative indifference on the part of respondent No.2 has resulted in the petitioner being deprived of an opportunity to establish his entitlement over the property and consequently to the compensation arising out of the acquisition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 5. In the backdrop of the grant obtained by the petitioner’s father, which is prima facie evidenced by the document produced at Annexure–B, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has demonstrated a legal and enforceable right to seek consideration of his representation. Correspondingly, the respondent authorities are under a statutory obligation to examine such representation and pass appropriate orders after conducting the necessary enquiry. The failure to do so clearly warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires consideration by respondent No.2 in accordance with law. Since there is evident laxity on the part of respondent No.2–Tahasildar in not initiating and completing the enquiry contemplated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 under the relevant revenue provisions, this Court finds that the present case is a fit one where a writ of mandamus deserves to be issued. Consequently, appropriate directions are required to be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass orders in accordance with law. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. Respondent No.2–Tahasildar is hereby directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 27.10.2025 and, after conducting a due and proper enquiry in accordance with the applicable revenue laws, pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. While undertaking such consideration, respondent No.2 shall - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 specifically advert to the grant order stated to have been issued in favour of the petitioner’s father and examine the petitioner’s claim for restoration of the revenue entry. iii. In the event respondent No.2, upon enquiry, records a finding in favour of the petitioner and consequently mutates the petitioner’s name in respect of the land in question, which is stated to have already been acquired by respondent No.1–authority, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation to respondent No.1–authority seeking disbursement of compensation. Such representation shall be accompanied by the relevant documents including the grant order, the order passed by respondent No.2– - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14687 WP No. 2435 of 2026 Tahasildar, and the updated RTC extracts reflecting the petitioner’s name. iv. Upon receipt of such representation, respondent No.1–authority shall examine the petitioner’s claim and verify the documents produced, and thereafter pass appropriate orders regarding disbursement of compensation strictly in accordance with law. v. Respondent No.2–Tahasildar shall complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK