ORAL ORDER

The petitioner based on the registered sale deed dated 03.05.2017, appears to have approached the 4^th respondent - Tahsildar to mutate his name. The 4^th respondent - Tahsildar, in the absence of contest, has strongly declined to mutate his name based on the registered sale deed on the premise that the Power of Attorney executed by Chinnaswamy stood terminated on account of the death of Chinnaswamy. This order is confirmed by the 3^rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner and 2^nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner, and these concurrent orders are under challenge.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that since one of the executants died, the revenue officials have declined mutation.

4. This Court is of the considered view that the discretion vested in the revenue authorities under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is inherently limited when dealing with changes to the khata. Once a petitioner acquires valid title over immovable property through a registered sale deed, a mandatory duty arises for the revenue authorities to effect changes to the khata strictly in accordance with the conveyance as reflected in the registered document. The rights acquired under a registered sale deed are legally enforceable, and the petitioner is not required to independently notify the revenue authorities about the acquisition of rights in the immovable property. Rather, it is the responsibility of the registering authority to notify the jurisdictional Tahsildar, triggering the necessary steps for khata transfer as per the statutory framework.

5. However, during the course of the summary inquiry, the revenue officials failed to examine the validity of the General Power of Attorney (GPA) and the sale deed executed under the authority of the GPA holder. It is crucial to highlight that the revenue officials do not possess the authority to scrutinize the legitimacy of a sale deed on the basis of issues such as the death of one of the executants before the execution of the sale deed. Such matters fall squarely within the jurisdiction of a competent civil court and cannot be adjudicated under the limited scope of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore, revenue officials cannot invalidate a sale deed or impede a khata transfer by questioning the legal validity of documents executed under a GPA due to the death of a principal party.

6. In the present case, the General Power of Attorney was executed not by a single individual but by multiple joint family members, including the husband, widow, and children, all of whom collectively authorized one S.S. Vinayaka Murthy to sell the petition property. The mere fact of the death of one of the executants does not automatically terminate the GPA unless otherwise stipulated, and the impact of such death on the GPA’s validity is a matter to be determined by the competent civil court. The role of revenue authorities remains strictly administrative and procedural. They are bound to act within the confines of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, without delving into complex questions of law or title disputes. Consequently, the orders passed by the 4th respondent—Tahsildar affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, remain valid and enforceable. The challenge raised against these orders holds no merit within the scope of the revenue authorities’ statutory responsibilities.

7. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

The orders dated 03.12.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A, the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the 3^rd respondent vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the 4^th respondent vide Annexure-C, are set aside.

The 4^th respondent is hereby directed that he would take cognizance of the sale deed and effect change of khata, s