A vague claim of 'technical issues' by revenue authorities is not a valid legal ground to refuse the mutation of property records when a registered sale deed is provided and found in order.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE REPLY AT ANNEXURE-D DATED 28/10/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN TERMS OF SALE DEED DATED 5/03/2016 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

DsGBi YIigg RAni Ite HJadAAl b Ty Ay T.I …RESPONDENTS

G BYIR AI HJA A TA T. I LHOKDBD21+04o EAH aF 0IcG 2:tNR 54A ea 6H 3N 6C:Rt

. 0i 0: A Ho W 4C 2n T 8O .A: 1AU D 1KR AT

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has called in question the endorsement/ reply dated 28.10.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Balagavi - Respondent No.2 (Annexure-D), seeking a consequential direction to mutate the petitioner's name in the revenue records in respect of the petitioner property purchased under registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016.

3. Brief facts:

3.1. The petitioner purchased an industrial property bearing Plot No.21, measuring 4052 square metres with an RCC building out of R.S.No.167/1 situated at Kakati Industrial Area, Kakati Village, Belagavi, under a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016 (Annexure-A).

3.2. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that, even after lapse of several years, the name of the vendor continues to be reflected in the revenue records as per RTC (Annexure-B), and despite repeated approaches, the petitioner's name is not entered.

3.3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.10.2025 to respondent No.2 seeking mutation (Annexure-C).

3.4. Respondent No.2 has issued an impugned reply/endorsement dated 28.10.2025 stating in substance that, “due to technical issues” the mutation could not be effected (Annexure-D).

3.5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner's title is evidenced by a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016, therefore the continued reflection of the vendor's name in the RTC records is arbitrary and causes serious prejudice. Merely stating ‘technical issues’, neither discloses the impediment nor provides any lawful basis to deny mutation. It is urged that, once a registered conveyance is produced and found in order, what remains for the revenue authorities is to effect mutation, subject to verification of documents and therefore a present positive mandamus is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 - Tahsildar submits that, as reflected in Annexure-D, the mutation could not be carried out on account of ‘technical issue’, and thus there is no rejection not to record petitioner's name in the revenue records pursuant to the registered sale deed.

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the materials on record.

7. The petitioner claims under a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is non-entering the name of the petitioner, despite a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2016. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-D merely refers to a technical issue. Apart from using the said expression, no impediment is disclosed. No particulars are furnished as to what prevented respondent No.2 from acting on the pe