- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1592 WP No. 100793 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100793 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: D.S.CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LMT., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. SWARAN SINGH S/O. TEJA SINGH, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.22/111, VILLA FATTY, DONA PAULA, PANJIM GOA-403004. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. CHETANA S.BIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY, SSLR BUILDING, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001. 2. TAHASHILDAR, BELAGAVI BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE REPLY AT ANNEXURE-D DATED 28/10/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN TERMS OF SALE DEED DATED 5/03/2016 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.11 14:46:48 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1592 WP No. 100793 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has called in question the endorsement/ reply dated 28.10.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Balagavi - Respondent No.2 (Annexure-D), seeking a consequential direction to mutate the petitioner's name in the revenue records in respect of the petitioner property purchased under registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016. 3. Brief facts: 3.1. The petitioner purchased an industrial property bearing Plot No.21, measuring 4052 square metres with an RCC building out of R.S.No.167/1 situated at Kakati Industrial Area, Kakati Village, Belagavi, under a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016 (Annexure-A). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1592 WP No. 100793 of 2026 3.2. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that, even after lapse of several years, the name of the vendor continues to be reflected in the revenue records as per RTC (Annexure-B), and despite repeated approaches, the petitioner's name is not entered. 3.3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.10.2025 to respondent No.2 seeking mutation (Annexure-C). 3.4. Respondent No.2 has issued an impugned reply/endorsement dated 28.10.2025 stating in substance that, “due to technical issues” the mutation could not be effected (Annexure-D). 3.5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner's title is evidenced by a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016, therefore the continued reflection of the vendor's name in the RTC records is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1592 WP No. 100793 of 2026 arbitrary and causes serious prejudice. Merely stating ‘technical issues’, neither discloses the impediment nor provides any lawful basis to deny mutation. It is urged that, once a registered conveyance is produced and found in order, what remains for the revenue authorities is to effect mutation, subject to verification of documents and therefore a present positive mandamus is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 - Tahsildar submits that, as reflected in Annexure-D, the mutation could not be carried out on account of ‘technical issue’, and thus there is no rejection not to record petitioner's name in the revenue records pursuant to the registered sale deed. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1592 WP No. 100793 of 2026 7. The petitioner claims under a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is non-entering the name of the petitioner, despite a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-D merely refers to a technical issue. Apart from using the said expression, no impediment is disclosed. No particulars are furnished as to what prevented respondent No.2 from acting on the petitioner's representation, and no timeline or remedial step is indicated. A technical issue, without more, cannot be treated as a lawful justification to indefinitely withhold mutation, particularly where the claim is founded on a registered document. 8. In such circumstances, a direction is warranted. At the same time, it is always open to the Revenue Authorities to verify the documents produced and to act in accordance with law. Therefore, a positive mandamus deserves to be issued to respondent No.2 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1592 WP No. 100793 of 2026 to effect mutation upon verification of the registered document and allied records, if found in order. 9. Accordingly, this Court pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records (RTC) in terms of the registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016 (Annexure-A), after due verification of documents and if found in order, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22