WP/11752/2026 of SMT R SAROJAMMA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 16 April 2026

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents.

2. It is the contention of petitioner that the competent authority, Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, recommended grant of land under Grow More Food Scheme in GMF 29/1956-57 in favour of the petitioner's father-Sri.Ramanna, in respect of 4.00 Acres in Survey No.39 of Gollahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued an Official Memorandum in order

HC-KAR

bearing No.B.DIS.SPL.DAR/2/1957-58, granting 4 Acres of land in favour of the petitioner's father for upset price of Rs.25/- per Acre. Thereafter, the name of the grantee was entered in the revenue records in terms of M.R.No.88/1984-85. It is contented that after the death of the original grantee, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records in terms of mutation order bearing No.IHC 34/1996-97. However, the name of the petitioner has not been continued in the computerized RTC after the land records were computerized. Therefore, the petitioner has given several representations to the respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, to continue the name of the petitioner in the computerized RTC. However, the Tahsildar has not considered the representations till date and hence, the prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Tahsildar, to consider the representations given by the petitioner and pass necessary orders within a time frame.

HC-KAR

3. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds from the material on record that the name of the original grantee was earlier entered in the land revenue records and subsequently, after the death of the original grantee, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. However, if the Tahsildar is of the opinion that the petitioner’s father has not been granted lands, nevertheless, it is the duty of the Tahsildar to secure the original Grant Register, Saguvali Chit Issue Register and other contemporaneous Records to satisfy himself regarding the grant made in favour of the grantee. Moreover, there is no reason why the name of the petitioner which was earlier entered in the land revenue records has not been continued after computerization, the Tahsildar is duty bound to look into all these aspects and pass necessary orders.

HC-KAR

4. Consequently, this writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the respondent–Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, to consider the representations given by the petitioner and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, verify the original records and pass necessary orders to enter the name of the petitioner in the land revenue records as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

DL CT: JL