ORAL ORDER

1. These facts are not in dispute.

2. The land bearing Sy.No.101 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas situate at Talamakki Village, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District was granted to Suresh Sundar Joshi as he was an Ex-serviceman. Suresh Sundar Joshi passed away on 04.10.2019 leaving behind him his daughter Radhika - petitioner No.1 as his only legal heir. However, it appears that Suresh Sundar Joshi had executed a registered Will dated 02.09.2016 in favour of the 2^nd petitioner and at the request of Suresh Sundar Joshi's wife and daughter i.e., the 1^st petitioner, that they have no objection, the khatha was changed in the name of the 2^nd petitioner.

3. This transfer of khatha was challenged by the 5^th respondent before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, by the impugned order, has set aside the order of the Tahsildar on the ground that the Will was being disputed. The Assistant Commissioner has also gone on to state that there were some irregularities in the grant and therefore, the matter was required to be examined.

4. It is not in dispute that a land grant was made in favour of Suresh Sundar Joshi and it is also not in dispute that this grant made in favour of Suresh Sundar Joshi was not challenged by anybody, muchless by the 5^th respondent. If, on the basis of the grant, the name of Suresh Sundar Joshi was entered in the revenue record, it is obvious that on his death, the name of his legal representative will have to be entered in the revenue record. Thus, the fact that the name of the 1^st petitioner i.e., Radhika, the only legal heir of Suresh Sundar Joshi was to be entered in the revenue record cannot be in dispute.

5. It is no doubt true that on the basis of the Will, the revenue authorities, ostensibly, on the basis of the consent given by the wife and daughter of Suresh Sundar Joshi have changed the khatha in the name of the 2^nd petitioner, by considering him as a legatee. This process adopted by the revenue authorities i.e., accepting the Will merely on the basis of the consent of wife and daughter of the deceased grantee cannot be accepted.

6. It is settled law that if a change of entry is to be made on the basis of a Will and that too when the Will was executed in favour of a person who is not a blood relative of the khatedar, the propounder of the Will has to necessarily approach the Civil Court and secure a declaration regarding his entitlement, only then, can the entries be changed in his favour.

7. In light of this legal position, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and direct him to enter the name of the 1^st petitioner - Radhika in the revenue record as the legal heir of Suresh Sundar Joshi. It is, however, open for the 2^nd petitioner to secure an appropriate declaration in the Civil Court on the basis of registered Will executed in his favour by Suresh Sundar Joshi and thereafter seek change of khatha in his name. Ordered accordingly.