CCC/381/2025 of SMT. ANUSUYAMMA Vs SRINIVAS on 21 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA appearing for the accused. An allegation of willful disobedience of the order dated 16.04.2024, passed by this court in Writ Petition No.5921/2024 is made.

2. In the order of the writ court, the court observed that the name of the petitioner was earlier entered in the land records; that if the Tahsildar was of

HC-KAR

the opinion that the petitioner had not been granted his land, it is the duty of the Tahsildar to secure the original records, Saguvali Chit issue register and other contemporaneous records to satisfy himself regarding the grant made in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a specific direction to the Tahsildar to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made, verify the original record and pass necessary order to enter the name of the petitioner in the land revenue records.

3. A compliance affidavit filed by Sri.Lokesh K.N., Special Tahsildar (I/c), Bengaluru South Taluk, is filed on 29.04.2026. Paragraph Nos.3 to 6 therein states as follows: “3. I state that, we have noticed that, hand written RTC bearing page nos. 246 and 247 are genuine and in addition to the hand written RTC bearing page nos. 36, 37 and 35, which are found to be mismatching with the original in respect of colour of Ink and hand writing. On comparison and verification between genuine RTCs of page nos. 246 and 247 with that of RTC's page nos. 36, 37 and 35 it is found that pages 36, 37 and 35 have

HC-KAR

been inserted between page nos. 246 and 247. The copies of RTC's page nos. 246, 247, 36, 37 and 35 are herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R1.

4. I state that, on verifying the MR entries from 01/81-82 to 06/81-82 are found to be genuine, however, MRs 9/81-82 have different hand writing, colour of the Ink and approved signature. The copy of the MR entry is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R2.

5. I state that, on the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, on comparing the land records enclosed along with the registration of the complainant and the land related records available with the record room, pertaining to Sy.No.59, Maragondahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, it is found that, grant records such as Grant certificate, Darakshu Memorandum, Official Memorandum, Kimath paid challan etc., are not available and same has been officially ratified by the concern record room-in-charge, Manager (in- charge of Record Room) and Grade-II Tahsildar. The copy of the said communication is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R3.

6. I submit that the ink used in the taking of entries in the RTC and other relevant records to show the name of the petitioner as a grantee does not corroborate with that of the similar entries of the same period. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed an appropriate order by giving the specific direction to consider the representation given by the Petitioner, to verify the original records and pass necessary orders to enter name of the Petitioners in revenue land records. On the direction of the High Court, we have verified the records, obtained the reports from the record room, and accordingly, issued an

HC-KAR

endorsement dated 19.03.2025 to the Petitioner. Hence complying the Hon'ble Court Karnataka. The copy of the endorsement issued on 19.03.2025 is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R4.”

4. The learned AGA has drawn attention of the court to Annexure-R4, which is an endorsement dated 19.03.2025, which reflects that upon inspecting the record room pertaining to 0-20 guntas in Survey No.59 of Maragondanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, the land in question was found to be a gomal land and it is reported that the original grant files in relation to 0-20 guntas such as Saguvali Chit, Darkhast Memorandum, Darkhast application, statement, upset price payment challan are not found in darkhast register and that there were changes between the handwritten RTC and Mutation Register writings, which have been reported by the record room section. After consideration, the request of the complainant has been declined.

HC-KAR

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has referred to Annexure-H, the reply statement filed on 22.07.2025 by to contend that the name of Smt.Anusuyamma, wife of Sri.Ramaiah is recorded at Sl.No.609/79-80 in the register, in respect of 20 guntas of land.

6. However, when queried the learned counsel has not been able to inform the court that the certified copy of the document pertains to which page number of the concerned register. It is noted hereinabove, in the quoted paragraphs of the affidavit, that several pages were found to be inserted in the mutation register. The RTC and the mutation register No.9/81-82 has different handwriting, colour of the ink and signature.

7. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, this court would not undertake an exercise in evaluating documents which are disputed by the respondents/accused. In this view of the matter, the contempt case is consigned.

HC-KAR

8. It is however open for the petitioner/ complainant, to seek remedy as may be advised to him, in accordance with law.

Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE JJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7