The grievance of the Petitioner is as to non-

updation of the entries in the Revenue Records, that

were left over because of some computer-related

problem during the relevant period. Learned counsel for

the Petitioner vehemently argues that the Deputy

Commissioner made a suo moto Revisional Order under

Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

3

on 07.02.2022 at Annexure-K to make entries and the

same is not being obeyed by the other revenue officials

of the lower rung and this would not augur well for the

rule of law.

Learned

AGA

appearing

for

the

official

Respondents opposes the Petition contending that there

would be no much difficulty for updation of partial entries

i.e., in Column No.9 of the RTC; however, there is

difficulty in respect of entry to be made in Column

No.12(2) of the RTC inasmuch as, some other persons

have already built structures in the subject land and

thus, Petitioner can not be in the cultivars column. He

also draws attention of the Court to the Affidavit filed by

the

Tahsildar

on

17.10.2022

in

this

regard.

So

contending that, he seeks dismissal of the writ Petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the Petition papers, this

Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the

matter inasmuch as, the entries that were left over

4

because

of

computer-related-problem,

need

to

be

restored to the Revenue Records at least to the extent

they

relate

to

Column

No.9.

Since

the

possession/occupation is a factor so far as Column

No.12(2) is concerned, Petitioner has to workout his

remedy elsewhere in accordance with law, as rightly

contended by learned AGA.

For the grant of limited relief as indicated

above, the version of Tahsildar at Paragraph Nos. 7 & 8

of his Affidavit comes to the partial support of the

Petitioner and therefore, the same is extracted below:

7. “I state that pursuant to the said grant

there is no impediment for our office to

effect

mutation

in

favour

of

the

petitioner. However, the petitioner has

required to take necessary steps to

recover possession from the persons

who have constructed the house and

residing therein in the portion of the

land said to have been granted in favour

of the father of the petitioner in Sy.

No.29 of the Kodichikkanahalli village

measuring 30 guntas.

8. I state that, after the entry of mutation

and RTC in favour of the petitioner our

office or the Revenue department cannot

5

be in a position to put the petitioner in

possession of the land by evicting the

persons who have constructed houses

and residing therein. As such if this

Hon’ble court is permitted to effect

mutation in favour of the petitioner in

column no.9 of the RTC, our office would

be in a position to enter the same but, in

column No.12 of the RTC i.e., occupants

column the name of the petitioner

cannot be entered for the aforesaid

reasons.”

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is

disposed off; the official Respondents are directed to

enter the name of Petitioner in Column No.9 of the RTC.

The time for compliance is three months, all contentions

in respect of that are kept open.

The question of making entry to Column No.12(2)

of the RTC would arise if & when Petitioner obtains a Civil

Court Decree in that regard.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv