Karnataka High Court
Sri Prabhakar vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35904
WP No. 23672 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 23672 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PRABHAKAR
S/O LATE VENKATANARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF
ADENNAGARAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDIKAR HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND
DISTRICT-562 104.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
by CHAITHRA A VIDHANASOUDHA
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS AND
SURVEY SETTLEMENT (TECHNICAL)
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
AT OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35904
WP No. 23672 of 2024
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.
5. THASILDAR
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK
CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.
6. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK
CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA .A.S, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT 2 TO 6 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF
THE PETITIONER DTD 11.03.2019, 29.06.2020, 10.08.2020
AND 4.07.2024 PLACED VIDE ANNX-F, G,H,M,Q AND T TO THE
WP IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED 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
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is seeking a mandamus against the
respondent Nos.2 to 6 to consider his representations
dated 11.03.2019, 29.06.2020, 10.08.2020 and
04.07.2024 vide Annexures-F, G, H, M, Q and T.
NC: 2024:KHC:35904
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner's father instituted a suit seeking relief
of declaration and injunction in O.S.No.114/2014 and for
relief of declaration. Petitioner is aggrieved by the
inaction on the part of the respondents more particularly
respondent No.5/Tahsildar who is not showing any
inclination to act upon the judgment and decree rendered
in O.S.No.114/2014 and mutate the name of petitioner
and his family members based on the decree.
4. On perusal of the judgment rendered in
O.S.No.114/2014, this Court has noticed that plaintiff is
declared to be the owner of the suit schedule property to
an extent of 2 acres. Portion of the decree is relevant and
the same is culled out as under:
"It is ordered and decreed that the suit of the
plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
It is declare that the plaintiffs are the owner of
the suit property.
NC: 2024:KHC:35904
Further the defendant is hereby restrained
from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs
in the suit property by way of permanent injunction.
SCHEDULE
Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.102, new
No.102/P1, measuring 2-00 acres, assessed at
Rs.2.30, situated at Chikkanagavalli village, Mandikal
Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk, bounded on follows:
East by : Baddara Hanumanthappa's land
West by : Government Halla
North by : Patel Vasantha Reddy's land
South by : Lands of Narasimhaiah & Peddanna"
5. Perusal of the judgment and decree, it is
evident that the petitioner's father is declared to be the
absolute owner to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.102
corresponding New No.102/P1. Learned AGA submits that
unless 11E sketch is obtained by the competent authority,
petitioner is not entitled to get his name mutated to the
revenue records. This Court is not inclined to accede to
the said argument. In terms of the decree granted by the
competent civil Court, there is no impediment for the
respondent No.5/Tahsildar to mutate the name of the
NC: 2024:KHC:35904
petitioner and his family members to an extent of 2 acres.
If petitioner and his family members based on the entry in
the RTC to an extent of 2 acres intend to seek a separate
RTC, it is open for the petitioner and his family members
to seek phodi and durasthi.
6. In the present case on hand, petitioner's father
is declared to be the absolute owner to an extent of 2
acres. Therefore, since there is acquisition of right based
on the decree rendered by the competent civil Court,
petitioner and his family members are entitled to get their
names mutated in terms of Section 128 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act. Therefore, this is a fit case where a
mandamus lies.
7. Petitioner based on a decree rendered by the
Civil Court has acquired legal right to seek direction at the
hands of this Court. The respondent is equally obligated
to mutate the name of the petitioner and his family
members jointly along with other co-owners in the RTC
pertaining to Sy.No.102 corresponding new No.102/P1.
NC: 2024:KHC:35904
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The respondent No.5/Tahsildar is
hereby directed to consider the representations
dated 11.03.2019, 29.06.2020, 10.08.2020 and
04.07.2024 vide Annexures-F, G, H, M, Q and T
and while doing so, he is hereby directed to take
cognizance of the judgment and decree rendered
in O.S.No.114/2014;
(iii) Respondent No.5 shall mutate the
name of the petitioner and his family members
by taking cognizance of certificate which is
already furnished;
(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
