- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1999 WP No. 32953 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 32953 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI V N SHIVAKUMAR AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA, R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU 3 560 109 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARK ROAD MANDYA MANDYA -571 401 Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1999 WP No. 32953 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA PARK ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401 5. THE TAHSILDAR MALAVALLI TALUK KOLLEGALA MAIN ROAD, MALLAVALLI - 571 430 6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR MALAVALLI TALUK, KOLLEGALA MAIN ROAD, MALLAVALLI 3 571 430 7. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR TOREKADANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALGURU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 421 &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO MATATE ONLY THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RTC WITH REFER TO SY. NO. 33/1 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 21 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT TOREKADANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALAGURU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, DATED 26.09.2025 AND 17.10.2025 VIDE ANNX-J AND J1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1999 WP No. 32953 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Even before the Court could hear the learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate has furnished a copy of the latest RTC, wherein the name of the petitioner is entered in Column No.9 in terms of mutation order bearing No.M.R.T.13/2015-16 dated 08.10.2015. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner was that the name of the previous owner/vendor of the property in question was also reflected in the RTC and therefore, the petitioner had sought for removal of the name of the previous owner/vendor. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is satisfied with the action taken by the respondent-authorities. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27