Sri. Dharmappa Lamani S/O Budappa Lamani Vs State of Karnataka

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 TO DELETE THE NAME OF GOVERNMENT IN COLUMN NO.9 AND ENTER THEIR PETITIONER NAME AS OWNERS OF LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 5-A AND 15-G IN COLUMN NO.9 OF AGRICULTURE LAND BEARING SY.NO. NO.21, SITUATED AT NAGAVI VILLAGE BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.08.2022 (ANNEXURE-G) TO THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND ALSO REPRESENTATION DATED 10.02.2025 (ANNEXURE-H) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 3^RD RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8512 WP No. 103143 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶25

Heard learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjun S.Hiremath for the petitioner. Learned AGA Sri.M.M.Khannur accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶26

This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondent No.3 to enter/mutate the name of the petitioner in Column No.9 of the record of rights and in other revenue records pursuant to the registered sale deed executed in favour of the father of the petitioner.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that his father was an agriculturist. The father of the petitioner was a tenant of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.21 totally measuring 17 acres 38 guntas situated at Nagavi village.

¶28

It is stated that the father of the petitioner had purchased half portion of the agricultural land i.e., 8 acres 24 guntas

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8512 WP No. 103143 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

from the owner of the land vide registered sale deed in the year 1953 for a consideration of Rs.500/-. It is submitted that after getting the sale deed executed, father of the petitioner was put into possession as owner to an extent of the land purchased and for remaining half portion, he continued as a bonafide tenant. Based on the sale deed, mutation was entered in the name of the petitioner.

¶32

It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner continued as a tenant in the half portion of the land bearing Sy.No.21, however, other portion of the land which was purchased by the father of the petitioner was given to one Timmaraddi Lakkappa Doddamani for 6 years for an amount of Rs.325/- on a condition that he would hand over the land after completion of 6 years. The said Timmaraddi Lakkappa Doddamani after completion of 6 years handed over the property to the father of the petitioner. However, the name of the said Timmaraddi Lakkappa Doddamani continued in the record of rights. The petitioner further submits that his father died and

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8512 WP No. 103143 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

thereafter his mother had applied for grant of other portion of the land in which they are cultivating as a tenant in favour of her 4 children, including the petitioner. The land Tribunal after hearing all the parties vide order dated 03.11.1978 granted the land in favour of 4 children of deceased Budappa Lamani and thereafter Form No.10 was issued in favour of the children of Budappa Lamani for the portion of granted land i.e., 9 acres 25 guntas. After grant of land, the petitioner, his brother and sister became the absolute owner of the entire agricultural land bearing Sy.No.21 measuring 17 acres 38 guntas. Since then the petitioner and his brother are cultivating the land without any disturbances.

¶36

The petitioner further contends that surprisingly the word ‘Government’ was entered in Column No.9 of the record of rights of the land bearing Sy.No.21 to an extent of 5 acres 15 guntas without there being any intimation or notice to the petitioner and for other portion, the name of the petitioner and his brother continues as owner to an

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8512 WP No. 103143 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

extent of 9 acres 25 guntas in Column No.9. The petitioner submits that on several occasions he had approached the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and enquired about the same. However, no satisfactory explanation was given by the concerned authorities. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent on 24.08.2022 with a request to delete the name of the Government entered in Column No.9 to an extent of 5 acres 15 guntas and enter his name as owner. But no action was taken by the 2^nd respondent. He further submits that on oral instructions of respondent No.2, the petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent with a representation dated 10.02.2025 producing all relevant documents. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶41

the petitioner that once a registered sale deed is entered into the Registrar Office, the same would have to be promptly recorded in the revenue records by the

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8512 WP No. 103143 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

prescribed authority and the concerned officer as

¶45

contemplated under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rule 63 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Despite the representations made, non-consideration of the representations to mutate the name of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Hence the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent No.3 to mutate his name in the revenue records.

¶46

Learned AGA representing the respondents submits that the representations of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law if reasonable time is granted, if otherwise the petitioner is entitled.

¶47

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned AGA for the respondents.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the registered sale deed is in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, as contemplated under Sections 128 and 129 of the

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8512 WP No. 103143 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rule 63 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 the duty is cast upon the authorities to record the name of the person in whose name a registered document exists. The prescribed officer is duty bound to enter the name of the registered owner even if any application is not made as the same is exempted.

¶52

Section 128 and Section 129 (1) and (2) of the

¶53

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 read as under:

¶54

“128. Acquisition of rights to be reported.(1)Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof, shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the prescribed officer of the village within three months from the date of such acquisition, and the said officer shall at once give a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the report to the person making it:

¶55

Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the prescribed officer:

¶56

Provided further that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted form the obligation to report to the prescribed officer.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8512 WP No. 103143 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

129. Registration of Mutations and Register of Disputed Cases. - (1)The prescribed officer shall enter in the Register of Mutations every report made to him under sub-section (1) of section 128 or received by him under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of the said section.

¶60

(2)Whenever a prescribed officer makes an entry in the Register of Mutations, he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry in a conspicuous place in the chavadi and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing from the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations to be interested in the mutation, and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein.”

¶61

Rule 63 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,

¶62

1966 reads as under:

¶63

“63. Registrar and Sub-Registrar to send intimation slips to the Tahsildar :- (1) The Registrar or Sub-Registrar as the case may be shall on receipt of information under Rule 44 on the completion of the preliminary record, send to the Tahsildar, daily intimation slips in Form 10 of all transactions relating to lands registered in his office compiled separately for each village. The Registrar or Sub-Registrar shall also send a consolidated list of all transactions once in a fortnight to the Tahsildar or to the authorized officer in Form 10-A.

¶64

(2) On receipt of intimation slip from the Registrar or Sub-Registrar in Form 10 and Form 10-A or on receipt of the report in Form 20-A the Tahsildar or the authorized officer shall cause the intimation slip to be entered in a Register in Form 10-B village-wise giving separate serial numbers for each village.”

¶65

Therefore, I pass the following:

¶66

9 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8512 WP No. 103143 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

ORDER

¶70

i. Petition is allowed.

¶71

ii. Writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2022 submitted to the respondent No.2 and the representation dated 10.02.2025 given to the 3^rd respondent, consequently delete the name of the ‘Government’ in column No.9 and enter/mutate the name of the petitioner to an extent of 5 acres 15 guntas in Column No.9 of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.21 of Nagavi village.

¶72

iii. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶73

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶74

KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri. Dharmappa Lamani S/O Budappa Lamani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Dharmappa Lamani S/O Budappa Lamani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Alka W/O Chandrahas Dhumal Vs the Under Secretary

Chandrashekar Sannu Gonda Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Yankappa L Kotabagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Kle Societys S S Sk Comp Pu College Vs the State of Karnataka

K L E Socieys Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. S. Kotrappa Wrongly Shown as Kotresh Vs the State of Karnataka