The court affirmed that revenue officials must maintain accurate land records and cannot arbitrarily delete names without due process, ensuring legal rights of landowners are protected.

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus against respondent Nos.3 and 5, directing them to restore the petitioner's name in the Record of Rights (RTC) as per Mutation Register (MR) No.4/1993-94. The petitioner contends that despite his lawful acquisition of the land and the mutation of his name in the RTC, his name was arbitrarily removed during the transition to a computerized RTC system. Furthermore, the petitioner seeks compensation against respondent Nos.3 and 5 for their negligence and failure to ensure the continuity of his name in the RTC, which has caused him undue hardship and legal complications.

2. The matter was heard in detail, with the learned counsel for the petitioner presenting arguments on behalf of the petitioner and the learned HCGP representing the respondents. This court carefully examined the records, documents, and legal contentions advanced by both sides.

3. The petitioner asserts that he is the lawful owner of two parcels of land measuring 1 acre 35 guntas and 5 guntas, respectively, situated in Survey No.7/8. He claims to have purchased these lands from the erstwhile owner through a registered sale deed. The petitioner's name was duly mutated in the RTC pursuant to MR No.4/1993-94, and the same was recorded and maintained in the revenue records for several years. The petitioner’s grievance arises from the fact that while his name was reflected in the RTC until 2001-02, it was subsequently deleted without any legal basis or due process, prompting him to file this writ petition seeking redress.

4. Upon a thorough examination of the title documents, it is evident that the petitioner acquired ownership of 1 acre 35 guntas in Survey No.7/8 through a sale deed executed by Ranganathappa and Narayanappa on 31.03.1993, which is documented under Annexure-B. Additionally, the petitioner separately purchased an additional extent of 5 guntas in the same survey number. The legitimacy of these transactions is not disputed, and the sale deeds remain unchallenged to date.

5. The court also examined the present RTC records submitted along with a memo. A significant anomaly was observed, wherein the name of legal heirs of erstwhile owner, who had already sold 1 acre 35 guntas of land in Survey No.7/8 to the petitioner, was restored in the RTC under MR No.3/2000-2001. Strangely, while the petitioner’s name continued to be reflected for the 5-gunta parcel, it was inexplicably deleted concerning the 1 acre 35 guntas, despite the petitioner’s lawful ownership and prior mutation entry.

6. The learned HCGP, upon receiving instructions, informed the court that the deletion of the petitioner's name from the RTC was a consequence of a false representation made by the erstwhile owner. Due to this misrepresentation, the revenue authorities erroneously removed the petitioner's name, despite his rightful ownership acquired through a legally valid and registered sale deed.

7. This court took cognizance of the fact that the petitioner's name was originally mutated in the RTC through MR No.4/1993-94 after due consideration of the sale deeds by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The revenue authorities had acted in accordance with the law while effecting the mutation, and the petitioner’s name was accordingly recorded in the RTC. Significantly, neither the mutation order under MR No.4/1993-94 nor the petitioner’s sale deeds have been challenged or annulled by any competent authority or private individual.

8. This court has further noted with concern the laxity on the part of the revenue officials during the transition to computerized RTC records. Despite the petitioner’s lawful acquisition of the land and his name being recorded under MR No.4/1993-94, the revenue authorities arbitrarily deleted his name without initiating any legal proceedings to set aside the mutation. The fact that the petitioner’s name continues to be reflected for the 5-gunta portion while being omitted for the