IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 737 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. MAXIM SEQUEIRA S/O LATE BOSTYAM SEQUEIRA @

SABESTIAN SEQUEIRA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT BALYA HOUSE, BARIMARU VILLAGE, KAGEKANA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA -574 253

2. MR. EVEREST SEQUEIRA S/O LATE BOSTYAM SEQUEIRA @

SABESTIAN SEQUEIRA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT BALYA HOUSE, BARIMARU VILLAGE, KAGEKANA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA -574 253 Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM …PETITIONERS Location: HIGH (BY SRI. KUMAR M.D., ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 001

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201

4. THE TAHSILDHAR BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 214 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. R.R.T (2) C.R 54/2022-23 DATED 25.07.2022 AT ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned endorsement dated 25/28.07.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 - Tahasildar, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, who has called upon the petitioners to furnish 11E sketch for consideration of their application for mutation entry in terms of the decree passed by the Civil Court / Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada in O.S. No.256/2021. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no need for the petitioners to furnish 11E sketch.

3. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate has pointed to a decision of this Court in the case of Kum. Jyothi and another v. State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.1523/2022 dated 26.07.2022 wherein this Court noticed an earlier decision of this Court in W.P. No.102325/2022 dated 06.07.2022 which was decided at the Dharwad Bench and wherein it was held hat there is a need for production of 11E sketch prepared at the hands of the licenced surveyor. For easy reference, the order passed in W.P.

No.102325/2022 is extracted as hereunder:

"5. However, on hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned HCGP, this Court finds that there is a purpose behind the insistance on production of IIE sketch prepared at the hands of the license surveyor, as contained in Clause-C of Section 131 of the Act, 1964. It provides that whenever there is alienation of a part of agricultural land or there is a division of a land into different parts entitling various persons who held the property, when unless a proper sketch is prepared at the hands of the license surveyor depicting the correct division or sub-division of the lands and the entitlement of each person, the survey department will not be in a position to maintain accurate records. If this mandatory requirement is not fulfilled, it would give rise to several litigations in future and the survey department or revenue department will not be in a position to furnish correct information regarding the division of the property and the entitlement of the owners.

6. Further, the issue is not only regarding the entry of the name of a person in the land revenue records or record of rights. The purpose of the provision is to enable the maintenance of proper record in the office of the survey department/ revenue department. In the considered opinion of this Court, the very purpose behind the enactment of the provision and the wisdom of the legislature in mandating production of revenue sketch (popula