[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Nagamma on 16 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53523-DB
WA No. 1393 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1393 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU - 560 002
2. THE TAHSILDAR
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Digitally TARIKERE TALUK
signed by
VEERENDRA CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228
KUMAR K M
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53523-DB
WA No. 1393 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGRICULTURIST
GUDDADABEERANAHALLI VILLAGE
LAKKAVALLI HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P.NO.20921/2024 (KLR-RES), SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 12/08/2024 IN W.P.NO.20921/2024 (KLR-RES) AND
THE SAID WRIT PETITION BE DISMISSED & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P.No.20921/2024 (KLR-RES).
2. The said petition was preferred by the respondent inter-alia
seeking a direction to the concerned revenue authorities to
consider her representation dated 25.09.2023. Apparently the
NC: 2025:KHC:53523-DB
HC-KAR
writ petitioner's grievance was that her name, which was
reflected in the revenue records in respect of 4-00 acres of land,
did not find mention in the land records as computerized. The
writ petitioner claims that the land in question was granted
pursuant to an order dated 14.04.1998. In the aforesaid context,
the learned Single Judge had held that when there is a grant in
favour of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner's name was
mutated in the revenue records based on the said grant, the
computerized RTC records would require to be entered by
"strictly aligning to the manual RTC entries maintained by the
revenue authorities coupled with the grant order in favour of the
petitioner".
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
writ petitioner had relied on a fake extract of the RTC records
and the land records did not reflect the name of the petitioner in
respect of 4-00 acres of land as claimed by her. He submitted
that the documents produced and annexed at page 39 of the
memorandum of appeal, which is the translated copy of the land
records reflecting the name of the, petitioner is fake. He submits
NC: 2025:KHC:53523-DB
HC-KAR
that notwithstanding the same, an affirmative direction has been
issued to mutate the name of the petitioner in the computerised
RTC to the extent of 4-00 acres of land.
4. The appellants have misread the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge. In terms of the impugned order, the
Tahsildar was directed to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 25.09.2023 and mutate her name in the computerized
RTC records in respect of 4 acres of land falling in Survey No.14
taking into cognizance the existing manual RTC records and
other relevant documents. It is obvious that the name of the writ
petitioner is required to be entered in the computerized RTC
records, if the manual records contains her name. Clearly, in the
event the manual records are recorded in the name of the writ
petitioner in respect of 4-00 acres of land falling in Survey No.14,
it is necessary that the computerised records also reflect the
same. There can be no alteration of the land records on the
basis that they are being computerized. In the event the revenue
authorities find that certain entries are manipulated and are
required to be rectified, the same can be done only in
NC: 2025:KHC:53523-DB
HC-KAR
accordance with law. That is, either before computerizing the
revenue records or thereafter on the basis of the records. The
existing entries cannot be excluded on the pretext of
computerizing the records.
5. The impugned order clearly directs that the writ petitioner's
name would be reflected in the computerized records if, (a) there
was grant in favour of the writ petitioner; and (b) the petitioner's
name was mutated in the revenue records based on the said
grant dated 14.04.1998. The operative part of the impugned
order has to be read in the light of the said directions. Thus, we
find that the present appeal is unmerited and is liable to be
dismissed.
6. It is also noted that there is a delay of 337 days in filing the
appeal, which is sought to be explained on account of
administrative delay in obtaining permission to file the appeal.
No specific dates as to when the permission to file the appeal
was sought and when it was granted, is disclosed. Clearly delay
on account of unexplained administrative reasons cannot be
NC: 2025:KHC:53523-DB
HC-KAR
countenanced. Thus we find no grounds to condone the delay
in filing this appeal.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed both on the ground of
delay as well as on merits.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12
