IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1393 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

BENGALURU - 560 002

2. THE TAHSILDAR

TARIKERE TALUK

CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

TARIKERE TALUK

Digitally signed by

CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228

VEERENDRA KUMAR K M

Location: Hig h

Court of 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Karnataka

CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. NAGAMMA

W/O RAMESH

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

AGRICULTURIST GUDDADABEERANAHALLI VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P.NO.20921/2024 (KLR-RES), SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/08/2024 IN W.P.NO.20921/2024 (KLR-RES) AND THE SAID WRIT PETITION BE DISMISSED & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20921/2024 (KLR-RES).

2. The said petition was preferred by the respondent inter-alia seeking a direction to the concerned revenue authorities to consider her representation dated 25.09.2023. Apparently the writ petitioner's grievance was that her name, which was reflected in the revenue records in respect of 4-00 acres of land, did not find mention in the land records as computerized. The writ petitioner claims that the land in question was granted pursuant to an order dated 14.04.1998. In the aforesaid context, the learned Single Judge had held that when there is a grant in favour of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records based on the said grant, the computerized RTC records would require to be entered by "strictly aligning to the manual RTC entries maintained by the revenue authorities coupled with the grant order in favour of the petitioner".

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the writ petitioner had relied on a fake extract of the RTC records and the land records did not reflect the name of the petitioner in respect of 4-00 acres of land as claimed by her. He submitted that the documents produced and annexed at page 39 of the memorandum of appeal, which is the translated copy of the land records reflecting the name of the, petitioner is fake. He submits that notwithstanding the same, an affirmative direction has been issued to mutate the name of the petitioner in the computerised RTC to the extent of 4-00 acres of land.

4. The appellants have misread the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. In terms of the impugned order, the Tahsildar was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.09.2023 and mutate her name in the computerized RTC records in respect of 4 acres of land falling in Survey No.14 taking into cognizance the existing manual RTC records and other relevant documents. It is obvious that the name of the writ petitioner is required to be entered in the computerized RTC records, if the manual records contains her name. Clearly, in the event the manual records are recorded in the name of the writ petitioner in respect of 4-00 acres of land falling in Survey No.14, it is necessary that the computerised records also reflect the same. There can be no alteration of the land records on the basis that they are being computerized. In the event the revenue authorities find that certain entries are manipulated and are required to be rectified, the same can be done only in accordance with law. That is, either before com