Karnataka High Court
Sri. M Siddappa vs The Tahasildar on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29940
WP No. 8896 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.8896 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M.SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIBEERAPPA
RESIDING AT
CHANDAPURA VILLAGE
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 560 099
(NOT CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN)
2. SRI. M.SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIBEERAPPA
RESIDING AT
Digitally signed CHANDRAPURA VILLAGE
by ALBHAGYA
ANEKAL TALUK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU RURAL DISRICT
KARNATAKA PIN - 560 099
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE TAHASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
ANEKAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29940
WP No. 8896 of 2024
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 562 106
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT TO IMPLEMENT THE COURT DECREE PASSED
BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT SIT AT ANEKAL IN RA NO.5047/2015 DATED
27/03/2018 (MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B) BY ENTERING THE NAMES
OF THE PETITIONERS IN ALL REVENUE RECORDS AS OWNERS
OF THE LANDS IN SY. NO.1/2 MEASURING 21 GUNTAS AND
SY. NO.58/1 MEASURING 39.08 GUNTAS OF CHANDAPURA
VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND
GRANT THE PETITIONERS SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEFS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, in this writ petition, have approached
the Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the
respondent, the Tahasildar, to mutate their names in the
revenue records pursuant to a decree granted by the
Appellate Court in R.A.No.5047/2015.
NC: 2024:KHC:29940
2. Petitioners assert that the Appellate Court has
ruled in their favor, declaring them the absolute owners of
the property in question and permanently restraining the
defendants from interfering with their lawful possession.
3. The background of the case reveals that the
Appellate Court, through a judgment and decree, declared
the petitioners to be the rightful owners of the disputed
property. The Assistant Commissioner, acting on this
judgment, directed the Tahasildar to comply with the
Appellate Court's order and effectuate the mutation of the
petitioners' names in the official records. However, despite
this clear directive, the Tahasildar has failed to act,
demonstrating a lack of diligence and adherence to the
Court's decree. This Court expressed concern over the
recurring trend of revenue officials failing to comply with
decrees issued by competent Civil Courts. This Court
emphasized that when a party succeeds in obtaining a
decree from a competent Civil Court, it is the mandatory
duty of the Revenue Authorities to implement such
NC: 2024:KHC:29940
decrees without delay. The Court noted with dismay the
apparent reluctance and failure of the Tahasildar to fulfill
this obligation, which constitutes a serious dereliction of
duty.
4. The failure of Revenue Officers to give effect to
decrees passed by Civil Courts has significant adverse
impacts on citizens and the judicial system. When these
Officials neglect to implement Court orders, it not only
undermines the authority and efficacy of the judiciary but
also erodes public trust in the legal system. For citizens,
this dereliction of duty can result in prolonged legal
battles, undue stress, and financial burden, as they must
resort to further litigation to enforce their rights.
Moreover, the constitutional Courts become unnecessarily
overburdened with cases seeking enforcement of decrees,
diverting their attention from other pressing legal issues.
This inefficiency clogs the judicial pipeline and delays
justice, contradicting the principle that justice delayed is
justice denied. It is imperative that once a decree is
NC: 2024:KHC:29940
passed, especially when no stay has been obtained,
it must be promptly and faithfully executed aligning with
procedure contemplated under Section 128 and 129 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
5. In the present case, the petitioners have provided
a copy of the judgment and decree from the Appellate
Court, which unequivocally declares them as the owners of
the property. The Court stated that the Revenue
Authorities are obliged to recognize and implement such
decrees, and any failure to do so undermines the Authority
of the judiciary and the rule of law. While this case clearly
warranted the imposition of exemplary costs on the
respondent - Tahasildar for his negligence, the Court is
persuaded by the learned Additional Government Advocate
to adopt a lenient approach. The AGA assured the Court
that the decree of the Appellate Court would be
implemented without further delay.
6. Based on the submission and assurance provided
by the learned AGA, this Court issued the following;
NC: 2024:KHC:29940
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent - Tahasildar is
directed to comply with the decree issued by
the Appellate Court in R.A.No.5047/2015
dated 27.03.2018, as detailed in
Annexure-B of the petition. The Tahasildar
shall ensure that the appropriate changes
are made in the revenue records by
mutating the names of the petitioners as the
rightful owners of the property, in
accordance with the judgment and decree
rendered in R.A.No.5047/2015.
(iii) The respondent - Tahasildar is
instructed to complete this process within a
period of six weeks from the date of this
order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
