Allowed¶54

Sri Vijay Kumar v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2025WP/24983/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (KLR-RES) — mutation / khata entry in revenue records — inam land — Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, Section 10 — occupant registration — 1958 grant order (Annexure-F/G) — taluk surveyor's report (Annexure-K) — possession — Tahsildar Yelahanka Taluk — Deputy Commissioner of Inam Abolition — mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 — directions to pass orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2-Tahsildar directed to forthwith look into the grant order (Annexure-G) and the survey report prepared by the taluk surveyor (Annexure-K) and pass orders forthwith in accordance with law; exercise to be completed within three months from receipt of the order copy. ¶54

Sri Vijay Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner of — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to have khata/mutation effected in the revenue records for the inam land (Sy.No.18/1, 0.27 guntas) based on the 1958 grant order registering their father as occupant and the taluk surveyor's report confirming possession. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The records submitted by the petitioner establish that the petitioner's father originally cultivated the land as a tenant, corroborated by the certified grant order under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954; pursuant to Section 10 of the Act the authority examined the matter and registered the petitioner's family as occupants of the land.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Read together, the certified grant order (Annexure-G) and the taluk surveyor's survey (Annexure-K) establish two key facts: the father's registration as occupant under the Act and the petitioner's family's current possession of the land.

¶41

Key takeaways

The State's contention requiring additional material for mutating the petitioners' name in the revenue records is without merit; the grant order and the surveyor's report provide sufficient substantiation, and the Tahsildar, having obtained the surveyor's report confirming possession, need not insist on further evidence or delay the process.ratio¶42
If the Tahsildar has reservations about the authenticity of the grant certificate (Annexure-G), he may independently verify its validity by securing relevant records from the appropriate office.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (single-judge oral order, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum) allowed the writ petition. The petitioners sought khata/mutation in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.18/1 measuring 0.27 guntas, admittedly inam land, relying on the order dated 05.05.1958 (Annexure-F) and the certified grant (Annexure-G) by which their late father was registered as occupant following enquiry under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, together with the taluk surveyor's sketch (Annexure-K) confirming the family's possession. The Court held that the grant order read with the surveyor's report constitutes sufficient substantiation; the State's demand for additional material was without merit; the Tahsildar may independently verify the grant certificate's authenticity from official records but cannot compel the petitioners to furnish further documents. A writ of mandamus was issued: respondent No.2-Tahsildar to consider Annexures G and K and pass orders in accordance with law within three months.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:272 WP No. 24983 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24983 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. LATHAMANI, W/O SHIVAKUMAR, D/O LATE LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. CHAYADEVI L, W/O MANJUNATH, D/O LATE LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE AND POST, JAALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 157.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.H, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INAM ABOLITION, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 562 157.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:272 WP No. 24983 of 2024

¶20

2. THE THASHILDHAR, YELAHANKA TALUK,

¶21

BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 157.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT, DIRECTING THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF DATD 02.11.2023 AND 26.08.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR MOTHER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B TO EFFECT KHATA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS BY CONSIDERING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 05.05.1958 DECLARED THAT THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONERS IS AN OCCUPANT OF LAND BEARING SY NO. 18/1 MEASURING 0.27 GUNTAS VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The subject matter of the captioned petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.18/1 measuring 0.27 guntas. The petitioner claims that the land in question is admittedly an inam land. The petitioner's father was cultivating the petition land as a tenant and accordingly made an application before respondent No.1 to register his name as an occupant of the land bearing Sy.No.18/1 (18) measuring 27 guntas. Accordingly, an application is filed in

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:272 WP No. 24983 of 2024

¶30

Form No.1. The competent authority, after due enquiry, registered the petitioner's father as an occupant and therefore, tenancy rights were decided under the said enquiry. To substantiate that the petitioner's father is a tenant of inam land and that there is a grant by the competent authority, a certified copy of the grant made by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition Act is produced and evidenced at Annexure-G.

¶31

The petitioner has also placed reliance on Annexure-K, which is a survey conducted by the taluk surveyor pursuant to direction issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. An application was tendered by the petitioner seeking to effect mutation based on the grant order. The taluk surveyor, as per Anneuxre-K, has submitted a sketch indicating that the petitioner's family is in possession of the grant land. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents in not effecting mutation.

¶32

Learned AGA, while resisting this petition, contends that the grant is of the year 1958 and the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:272 WP No. 24983 of 2024

¶35

petitioner's father never sought to get his mutated based on the grant order and therefore, she contends that the authority has to verify as to whether grant was made in favour of the petitioner's father and only after proper enquiry appropriate orders will be passed.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶37

The records submitted by the petitioner unequivocally establish that the petitioner's father originally cultivated the land as a tenant. This fact is corroborated by the certified grant order issued under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), as evidenced at Annexure-G. The grant order was passed by the Special

¶38

Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Act following a detailed inquiry. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Act, the authority conducted a thorough examination and registered the petitioner’s family as occupants of the land.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:272 WP No. 24983 of 2024

¶41

Annexure-G, being the certified copy of the grant order issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, forms a crucial piece of evidence in this matter. When considered in conjunction with the survey conducted by the taluk surveyor, as documented in Annexure-K, two key aspects emerge. Firstly, the petitioner has successfully demonstrated that his father’s name was registered as an occupant under the Act. Secondly, the documents collectively confirm the petitioner’s current possession of the land in question.

¶42

In light of these findings, the contention raised by the State, requiring additional material for mutating the petitioner’s name in the revenue records, appears to be without merit. The documents annexed to the writ petition, including the grant order (Annexure-G) and the surveyor’s report (Annexure-K), provide sufficient substantiation. Consequently, the jurisdictional Tahsildar, having already obtained the necessary report from the taluk surveyor confirming the petitioner’s possession, need

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:272 WP No. 24983 of 2024

¶45

not insist on further evidence or delay the process unnecessarily.

¶46

Nevertheless, should the jurisdictional Tahsildar

¶47

have any reservations about the authenticity of the grant certificate at Annexure-G, he is well within his authority to independently verify its validity by securing relevant records from the appropriate office. However, the Tahsildar cannot compel the petitioner to furnish additional documents beyond what has already been submitted. Such insistence would amount to an unwarranted burden on the petitioner, especially when the primary documents, including the grant order and the surveyor's report, unequivocally establish the petitioner’s claim.

¶48

Given the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is justified in asserting his legal right to have his name entered into the revenue records based on the grant order. The petitioner’s entitlement to a writ of mandamus is thereby wellfounded. The respondents are under a corresponding duty

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:272 WP No. 24983 of 2024

¶51

to act on the petitioner’s request, which entails considering the grant order at Annexure-G and the survey report at Annexure-K in a timely and lawful manner.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶54

ii. Respondent No.2-Tahsildar is hereby directed to forthwith look into the grant order evidenced at Annexure-G and the survey report prepared by the taluk surveyor evidenced at Annexure-K and pass orders forthwith in accordance with law;

¶55

iii. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶56

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶57

HDK CT: BHK

Sri Vijay Kumar v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijay Kumar v. the Deputy Commissioner of

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 Shakunthala M Vs Jagadeesh Shetty

Bheemanna Vs State of Karnataka

H M Gangappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gurumurthy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Basappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Siddesh @ Siddegowda Vs the State of Karnataka