Mallikarjun And Ors vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1102 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mallikarjun And Ors vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 10 February, 2026

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                               -1-
                                                            NC: 2026:KHC-K:1282
                                                         WP No. 200296 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                             BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                        WRIT PETITION NO.200296 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O SABANNA,
                         AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                         R/O H.NO.1-2-195, MAIN HARIJANWADA,
                         GURUMITKAL,
                         TQ. GURUMITKAL, DIST. YADGIR-585 214.

                   2.    SRI. SADASHIVA REDDY S/O NARSIREDDY,
                         AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                         R/O MALLAPUR VILLAGE, POST: PUTPAK,
                         TQ. GURUMITKAL, DIST. YADGIR-585 214.

                   3.    SRI. SHRINIVAS REDDY S/O VENKATREDDY,
                         AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                         R/O MAIN HARIJANWADA, GURUMITKAL,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA                TQ. GURUMITKAL, DIST. YADGIR-585 214.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                  ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA          (BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                         YADGIR, DIST. YADGIR-585 201.

                   2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                         YADGIR SUB-DIVISION,
                         DIST. YADGIR-585 201.

                   3.    THE TAHASHILDAR, GURUMITKAL,
                                   -2-
                                                  NC: 2026:KHC-K:1282
                                            WP No. 200296 of 2025


HC-KAR




    TQ. GURUMITKAL, DIST. YADGIR-585 214.

                                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE
RESPECTIVE    REPRESENTATIONS    DATED     25.10.2023
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C TO C2 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO
CONSIDER THE RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIONS DATED
23.12.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D TO D5 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONERS.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                          ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to

direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the

representations dated 25.10.2023 and 23.12.2024.

2. Petitioners are permanent residents of

Gurumitkal Taluk, District: Yadgir and they are

agriculturists by profession. They belong to Scheduled

Caste community. They contend that certain lands were

granted in their favour. The petitioners after paying the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1282

HC-KAR

occupancy price for the grant of land, were in possession

and cultivation of the same, without any interference from

anyone. The respondent-revenue authorities despite grant

of the land, did not mutate the names of the grantees in

Record of Rights. Petitioners are illiterate, rustic villagers,

without having any knowledge of law. Petitioners were

under the impression that the lands have been mutated in

their names. The petitioners realised that their names are

not mutated in the Record of Rights. Then, they

approached the respondents with representations on

25.10.2023 to mutate their names in the revenue records.

No steps were taken by the respondents to mutate the

names of the petitioners in the records. Again

representations came to be filed on 23.12.2024 before

respondent Nos.2 and 3. But since no action was taken,

left with no alternative, petitioners have approached this

Court, on the ground that the inaction of the respondents

in mutating the names, pursuant to the grant being made

and price having been paid is illegal, arbitrary and in

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1282

HC-KAR

violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners are in lawful possession and enjoyment of

the property and that is their only source of livelihood.

Hence, they seek to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate representing the State contends that the

respondents have given a reply to the petitioners asking

them to produce the entry Record of Rights for the year

1974 to 2021. He also contends that the petitioners ought

to have made applications through online portal, instead of

giving a physical copy or change of mutation entries.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners

and learned Additional Government Advocate, it is seen

that the land has been granted in favour of the petitioners,

which is not in dispute and they have furnished documents

along with their representations. So asking the petitioners

to produce the latest RORs would not make any sense,

unless there is any rival claim made by any other party

objecting to such ownership or claim so made by the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1282

HC-KAR

petitioners. Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964 is very clear and ambiguous. It reads as under:

"128. Acquisitions of rights to be reported.-(1) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof, shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the Prescribed Officer of the village within three months from the date of such acquisition, and the said Officer shall at once give a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the report to the person making it:

Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the Prescribed Officer:

Provided further that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the Prescribed Officer.

[Provided also that any person reporting under this sub-section the acquisition by him of a right in partition in respect of the land shall annex with the report a sketch showing the metes and bounds and other prescribed particulars of such land and such person shall get the sketch prepared by a Licensed Surveyor. ]

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1), the State Government may, by notification, appoint any Revenue Officer to whom a report under sub-section (1) may be made, in which case such Officer shall give a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such report to the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1282

HC-KAR

person making it, and forward the report to the Prescribed Officer of the village concerned.

(3) If any person makes a report under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).-

(a) after the period of three months but within the period of one year from the date of acquisition of the right, the report shall be received on payment of a penalty of two rupees;

(b) after a period of one year from the date of such acquisition, the report shall be received on payment of a penalty of not less than two rupees but not exceeding ten rupees, as may be ordered.-

(i) by the Tahsildar, in case the report is made under sub-section (1) to the Prescribed Officer; or

(ii) by the Revenue Officer, in case the report is made to such Officer under sub-section (2).

(4) No document by virtue of which any person acquires a right in any land as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or revenue thereunder, shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 12 of 1908), unless the person liable to pay the registration fee also pays to the Registering Authority such fees as may be prescribed for making the necessary entries in the Record of Rights and registers referred to in Section 129; and on the registration of such a document, the Registering Authority shall make a report of the acquisition of the right to the Prescribed Officer."

5. According to the above said provision under

Section 128 of the Act, a duty is caused upon a person

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1282

HC-KAR

who acquires ownership, succession or right to make an

application to the prescribed officer within 3 months, from

the date of such acquisition. The officer shall at once give

a written acknowledgment to the said person. Once there

is a registered document or the document of grant, the

same is produced by the person to the prescribed officer.

There is no requirement for the person to make an

application to report, when there is a registered document

as required under law, as it becomes a duty incumbent

upon the officer to register the name of the person, who

has acquired the ownership on the basis of the document,

which is forwarded by the prescribed officer to the

concerned revenue authorities.

6. The authorities will have to consider these

provisions while an application is made for change of

mutation entries, it is rather ignored than implemented.

The mandate of law as per Section 128 and 129 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the rules contemplated

therein under Rules 44 and 63 Karnataka Land Revenue

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1282

HC-KAR

Rules, 1966 are to be strictly implemented both in letter

and spirit, rather than denying the valuable right based on

these provisions, which are to be strictly followed by the

respondent authorities. Forcing the petitioners to knock

the doors of this Court is a clear negligence and dereliction

of duty of the respondent authorities in complying with the

mandatory provisions under Sections 128 and 129 of the

Act and Rules 44 and 63 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Rules.

7. Therefore, it becomes a duty of the respondent

authorities to follow the procedures strictly contemplated

under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Rules.

Petitioner having made the representations dated

25.10.2023 and 23.12.2024, respondents ought to be

considered in the teeth of these Sections and the Rules

contemplated hereinabove under the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act and the Rules.

8. Therefore, I pass the following:

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1282

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. Writ petition is allowed.

ii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing

respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the

representations dated 25.10.2023 and

23.12.2024 and pass suitable orders in

accordance with law, within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

the order.

Sd/-

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

NJ LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 11 CT:SI