IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 3936 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY, S/O LATE. RAGHURAM SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R.AT SUDHA BHAVAN PANGALA VILLAGE, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 122.

2. SRI.SANDEEP R GATTI, S/O SRI.G.K RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R.AT NO.416, SRI. SOMANATHA PRASAD, 2ND C MAIN, MES ROAD, MUTHYALA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 054.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G B NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Location: High Court of REP BY ITS SECRETARY Karnataka REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DR.B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE TAHSILDAR, SARGUR TALUK, SARGUR - 571 121.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.SESHU, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER LEGAL NOTICE DATED 20.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND REGISTRATION OF MUTATION WITH RESPECT TO LAND BEARING SY.NO.624 MEASURING 3 ACRES, SITUATED AT SAGARE VILLAGE, KANDALIKE HOBLI, HD KOTE TALUK, NOW SARAGUR TALUK IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for both the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is with the inaction by respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Sargur Taluk, to mutate and enter the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deed executed on 23.11.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not disputed that land was originally granted in favour of one Sri.Kada Shetty vide order bearing No.LND(4)158/74-75 dated

31.10.1974. Subsequently saguvali chit was issued and revenue records were transferred in the name of Sri.Kada Shetty. After his demise the revenue record was transferred in favour of Smt.Gopamma vide M.R.No.10/1977-78. Thereafter, the petition schedule property was sold in favour of Smt. Shreya Anuj Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 13.10.2010. Mutation entries were effected in her favour vide M.R.No.55/2010-11. The property was thereafter sold to the petitioners herein vide registered sale deed dated 23.11.2024. The petitioners issued a legal notice to the respondent- Tahsildar, Sargur Taluk on 20.09.2025 to enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue records on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 23.11.2024. He further submits that the Deputy Tahsildar by order dated 02.04.2025 in case No.RRT(DIS)49/2024-25 has ordered to mutate the names of the petitioners jointly however, the same has not been effected by the Tahsildar.

4. Learned counsel submits that it is the duty of the respondent-Tahsildar to register the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deeds.

5. There is sufficient substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Tahasildar is required by law to enter the name of the petitioners on the strength of a registered sale deed. If the Tahasildar is of the opinion that initial sale made on 13.10.2010 at the hands of Smt.Gopamma was in contravention of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, 1978, then the only legal recourse that is open for the Tahasildar is to initiate proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. Unless and until the competent authority sets aside the sale as void, the Tahasildar cannot decline to enter the names of the petitioners in the land records.

6. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 - Tahsildar, Sargur Taluk to look into the veracity of the claims of the petitioners made herein and thereafter proceed to mutate the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 23.11.2024. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a per