IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103350 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHAMIMBANU

D/O MIYA SAHEB PATWEGAR,

AGE. 74 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. DESAIBANA, NEAR OLD ASAR,

DESAIBAN,

GADAG-582 116.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHASWATH HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR

LAXMAN

KATTIMANI

Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

C K D A O H R U A N R R A W T T O A A D F

K A BENCH BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

VIKASA SOUDHA,

DR. AMBEDKAR VIDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, LAXMESHWAR TALUK,

GADAG DISTRICT-582 116.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

SARVODAYA SOCIETY,

GADAG-583 231.

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA (DC OFFICE), HUBLI ROAD, GADAG-582 101.

5. THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582 120.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TAHSILDAR, LAXMESHWAR TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT, TO CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.05.2024 (ANNEXURE-D) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR MUTATION OF HER NAME IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE 1/3^RD I.E., 4 ACRE 21 GUNTAAS 5 ANAAS, OUT OF 13 ACRE 24 GUNTAA, LAND BEARING SY. NO.20/1, SITUATED AT ULLATTI VILLAGE, LAXMESHWAR TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to consider the representation dated 31.05.2024 submitted by the petitioner to mutate his name in the revenue records in respect of 1/3^rd share i.e., 04 acres 21 guntas 05 annas, out of 13 acres 24 guntas, land bearing Sy.No.20/1 at Ullatti village of Laxmeshwar taluk.

2. The claim is based on the registered Sale Deed dated

13.08.1991. The provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, exempt the petitioner, who has acquired the property under the registered Sale Deed 13.08.1991, from reporting acquisition of rights. Without there being any application, the purchaser's name should have been mutated in the property records. However, the same was not done.

3. On an application for mutation, the Tahsildar was required to issue notice to the persons, in whose names the property records appear. Despite the Sale Deed and to the application filed by the petitioner, instead of issuing notice and conducting proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1964, the Tahsildar claims to have issued an endorsement dated 05.08.2024. The said endorsement is produced before this Court today.

4. It is to be noticed that this Court, vide order dated

27.05.2025, observed that the inaction on the part of the revenue authorities amounts to dereliction of statutory duty. Thereafter, on 10.12.2025, the Court noticed that there was no response from the Tahsildar to the observations made by the Court on 27.05.2025. Accordingly, the Court sought an explanation from the Tahsildar as to why costs of ₹25,000/- should not be imposed on him for not considering the representation dated 04.07.2022.

5. The endorsement produced today does not indicate that the communication was served to the petitioner. There is no acknowledgment or signature of the petitioner on the said endorsement. Though reference is made to the petitioner’s mobile number, it is not the case of the Tahsildar that any message was sent to the petitioner’s cell.

6. The circular dated 29.12.2009 is also produced to show that if the original owner's name is not reflected in the property records, an entry based on the Sale Deed executed by the original owner cannot be effected. Circular is contrary to the provision of law.

7. The Court is of the view that the endorsement dated

05.08.2024 is not served on the petitioner at all. It appears to be an anti