- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19595 WP No. 1075 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1075 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: MRS. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. NAGARAJU. B, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. BOPPASAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKARASINAKERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRCT KARNATAKA - 571 422. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGARAMU V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, ROOM NO. 110, M.S. BUILDING, GATE NO.2, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001. 2. TAHSILDAR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA MADDUR, MYSORE ROAD, MADDUR TOWN, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571 428. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19595 WP No. 1075 of 2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER /ENDORSEMENT DATED 09-12-2025, ITS BEARING NO. R.R.C.R/3031/2025-26. PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 HEREIN, THE COPY AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for both the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2/Tahsildar, Maddur Taluk has issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 09.12.2025 declining to entertain the representation given by the petitioner to enter her name in the revenue records on the strength of a Will left behind by the Kathedar Sri. Siddalingaiah, who is none other than the father-in-law of the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19595 WP No. 1075 of 2026 3. Learned counsel submits that this Court in the case of Smt. Ramadevi Vs. Tahsildar and others in W.P.No.4131/2023 dated 24.02.2023 has laid down the procedure to be followed in such cases where change of Khata is sought on the basis of a Will, The Tahsildar was required to follow the procedure as directed by this Court. 4. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs of the orders passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Ramadevi (supra) is culled out as follows: "4. Having considered the various cases such as Vijayalakshmi and Another /vs./ The Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga and Others reported in ILR 2007 KAR 3814, Sri P.K.Vasudevan /vs./ Deputy Commissioner–(2002) 4 KCCR 2285/(2002) Supreme (Kar) 283 and Shanthinath /vs./ Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga Sub- division and Others-2010 (2) KCCR 992, this court held that in the absence of any dispute, it is of course open to the revenue authorities to make an entry in the revenue records in favour of the person in whose favour the property is bequeathed under a Will, whether it is a registered or unregistered Will. However, having regard to the ratio laid down in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19595 WP No. 1075 of 2026 the case of Vijayalakshmi and P.K.Vasudevan (supra), this court held that the Tahsildar was required to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before considering such a request based on a Will. Section 129 clearly prescribes that the prescribed officer is required to make an entry in the Register of Mutations any such request/ application and at the same time, he shall post a complete copy of the entry in a conspicuous place in the chavadi (present day Gram Panchayat) and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing from the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations to be interested in the mutation and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein. On such notification being published, if the prescribed Officer receives any objection, then he may direct the applicant to approach a competent Civil Court to get a declaration in his/her favour that he/she is the owner of the property in terms of the Will. On the contrary, if no such objections are received, the prescribed Officer may proceed to enter the name of the applicant on the strength of a Will, be it registered or unregistered. In the present case, the Tahasildar has not passed any orders till date." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19595 WP No. 1075 of 2026 5. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent-Tahsildar is directed to publish the information regarding the claim made by the petitioner in the Boppasamudra Village, Maddur Taluk and call for objections from all interested persons. If objections are received within the prescribed time i.e., 30 days as provided in Section 129 of the Act, then the respondent- Tahsildar is empowered to issue an endorsement to the petitioner regarding the objection and call upon her to get a declaration of her rights under the registered Will. If there are no objections raised from any quarters, the Tahsildar shall proceed to enter the name of the petitioner, insofar as, the property in Sy.No.100/8 situated at Boppasamudra village, Chikkarasinkare Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, is concerned, in terms of the registered Will dated 18.03.1991. Needless to observe that the entry made by the Tahsildar, if no objections are received, will not preclude any interested person to challenge the entries made in the land records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19595 WP No. 1075 of 2026 Ordered accordingly. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1