Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

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.

¶11

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

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT DR.B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:7738 WP No. 3473 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR SARGUR TALUK SARGUR- 571121.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER LEGAL NOTICE DTD 20.09.2025 VIDE ANNX-F AND REGISTRATION OF MUTATION WITH RESPECT TO LAND BEARING SY NO. 594 MEASURING 3 ACRES, SITUATED AT SAGARE VILLAGE, KANDALIKE HOBLI, HD KOTE TALUK, NOW SARAGUR TALUK IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for both the respondents.

¶25

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.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:7738 WP No. 3473 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not disputed that land was originally granted in favour of one Smt.Gowramma vide order bearing No.LND(4)158/74-75 dated 17.10.1975. Subsequently saguvali chit was issued and revenue records were transferred in the name of Smt.Gowramma. After her demise the revenue record was transferred in favour of Sri.Jayaram and Others vide MR No.121/2009-10. Thereafter, the petition schedule property was sold in favour of Smt.Shreya Anuj Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 11.01.2011. Mutation entries were effected in her favour vide M.R.No.84/2010-11. The property was thereafter sold to the petitioners herein vide registered sale deed dated 23.11.2024. The Petitioner 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)46/2024-25 has ordered to mutate the names of the petitioners jointly however, the same has not been effected by the Tahsildar.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:7738 WP No. 3473 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

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

¶34

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 11.01.2011 at the hands of Sri.E.R.Jayaram 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.

¶35

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

¶36