Karnataka High Court
Mr Gilbert Vas vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.26357 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. GILBERT VAS
SON OF LATE JACOB VAS
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1-17(1)
BOLANTHURU HOUSE,
NARICOMBU POST AND VILLAGE
BANTWALA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT-574231
2. MR. HILARY VAS
SON OF LATE LAWRENCE VAS
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1-17
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN POITHAJE HOUSE
JAMKHANDI NARICOMBU POST AND VILLAGE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANTWALA TALUK
KARNATAKA DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT-574231
3. MR. ALOYSIUS VAS
@ LOUIS ALOYSIUS VAS
SON OF LATE LAWRENCE VAS
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1-18 ,
POITHAJE HOUSE
NARICOMBU POST AND VILLAGE
BANTWALA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574231
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. MR. HERALD @ HERALD VICTOR VAS
SON OF LATE BONA VICTOR VAS
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESDIINGA AT NO. A-105,
PEARL APARTMETNT, STELLA ROAD
BISHOP HOUSE, VASAI WEST,
THANE DISTRICT
MAHARASTRA-401202
5. MR. RONALD @ RONALD VAS
SON OF BONA VICTOR VAS
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1-17(3),
POITHAJE HOUSE,
NARICOMBU POST AND VILLAGE,
BANTAWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT-574231.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
BANTWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574231
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BANTWAL TALUK
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR,
BANTWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574231
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19-08-2024
BEARING NO.RRT(2) CR: 219/24-25 ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D. B)
ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS, DIRECTING THE THIRD
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER ANNEXURE-C AND AFFECT KHATA
TRANSFER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE
TERMS OF COMPROMISE FINAL DECREE PASSED IN
O.S.40/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.11.2025 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS', THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING;
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
Captioned petition is filed seeking to set aside the
endorsement dated 19.08.2024 issued by respondent
No.3/Tahsildar bearing No.RRT(2) C R : 219/24-25 and
also for the issuance of a mandamus to respondent
No.3/Tahsildar to consider their representation dated
02/07/2024 and effect change of khata in terms of the
compromise decree passed on O.S.No.40/2023.
2. Petitioner No.1 filed a suit for partition and
separate possession in O.S.No.40/2023 against petitioner
Nos.2 to 5 and others. The matter was compromised and a
final decree dated 09/12/2023 was passed in terms of the
compromise (Annexure-B).
3. Petitioners approached respondent No.3 with a
representation seeking change of khata as per the
compromise decree (Annexure-C).
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. Respondent No.3/Tahsildar gave endorsement
dated 19.08.2024 directing the petitioners to produce a
11-E sketch in order to effect change of khata. In the
endorsement it is specified that that Kaveri-II portal only
permits for change of khata with the production of a 11-E
sketch.
5. In consequence, the Tahsildar issued an
endorsement dated 19.08.2024 calling upon the
petitioners to produce an 11-E sketch to enable further
processing of the mutation.
6. Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964 obligates every person acquiring a right in land
by succession, partition, purchase, mortgage, lease, gift,
or otherwise to report such acquisition to the prescribed
officer so that appropriate entries may be made in the
record of rights. The legislative intent underlying Section
128 is to ensure that revenue records reflect the true and
existing ownership in conformity with law.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
7. Section 135 of the Act bars civil suits against
the State or its officers for entering or omitting entries in
revenue registers, but simultaneously provides that where
a person's right is declared by a Civil Court, the revenue
entries must be amended in accordance with that
declaration. Thus, once a decree attains finality, the
revenue authorities are bound to give effect to it by
carrying out necessary mutations.
8. In view of the above provisions, a final decree
for partition particularly one drawn on compromise
constitutes a lawful and binding acquisition of rights
"otherwise" within the meaning of Section 128. The
revenue machinery cannot disregard or postpone
implementation of such decrees on purely technical
grounds.
9. Whereas Kaveri 2.0 is the State's online
platform for the electronic registration and document
management of immovable property under the
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
Department of Stamps and Registration, and whereas the
Bhoomi and allied revenue systems under the Revenue
Department are responsible for maintaining the Record of
Rights, and related mutation records, it has been observed
that there is presently no dedicated provision or workflow
in Kaveri 2.0 to process or transmit civil Court decrees
including preliminary decrees, final decrees in partition
suits, or compromise decrees for the purpose of effecting
mutation in the revenue records.
10. This structural omission has the practical effect
of diminishing the authority and efficacy of judicial
determinations rendered by competent Civil Courts. Civil
decrees are binding and conclusive as to the rights of the
parties and operate as final adjudication of title and
possession in respect of immovable property. Yet, because
the existing digital architecture of Kaveri 2.0 recognizes
only voluntary transactions such as sale, gift, mortgage,
and inheritance and excludes adjudicatory acquisitions of
rights arising through judicial decrees, decree-holders are
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
forced to undergo repetitive and manual processes before
the revenue offices to secure what has already been
judicially determined.
11. Such procedural segregation between the
registration system (Kaveri 2.0) and the revenue system
(Bhoomi) effectively undermines the supremacy of civil
court decrees, resulting in contradictory records wherein
revenue entries continue to reflect outdated or superseded
ownership, despite the passing of binding judicial orders.
This not only erodes the sanctity of court judgments but
also leads to administrative non-compliance with Sections
128 and 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964,
both of which mandate that the revenue authorities must
amend the Record of Rights in conformity with judicial
declarations.
12. In the present case, it is undisputed that the
petitioner has obtained a final compromise decree in
O.S.No.40/2023, which has not been challenged and has
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
attained finality. The decree specifically quantifies the
petitioner's share in the joint family property.
13. While the insistence on an 11-E sketch may be
justified for the purpose of sub-division and issuance of
separate sub-survey numbers, such requirement cannot
be a ground to refuse mutation of names in the parent
revenue record. Mutation based on a decree is intended
merely to record the legal ownership already recognized
by a Civil Court; it is a fiscal act and does not itself confer
title.
14. The Tahsildar could have recorded the
petitioner's name in the mutation column reflecting their
entitlement as per the decree, pending sub-division on
receipt of the 11-E sketch. By declining to effect mutation
and by insisting upon procedural formalities as a
precondition to even acknowledging the decree, the
respondents have defeated the object of Section 128 and
acted contrary to the mandatory obligation imposed under
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
Section 135 to align revenue records with judicial
determinations.
15. The revenue authorities are fully empowered to
maintain the parent (original) RTC and, without awaiting
technical subdivision, reflect the names of all parties who
have been allotted shares in ancestral property pursuant
to a civil court decree, since such allotment merely
recognizes a pre-existing right by birth and mutation is a
fiscal acknowledgment of that right. It must be clearly
appreciated that mutation based on the decree and hissa
proceedings/sub-division based on the final decree with
metes and bounds are two distinct remedies operating at
different stages: the first records the adjudicated
entitlement and proportional shares in the parent survey
number, while the second, undertaken subsequently,
creates separate sub-survey numbers by effecting physical
demarcation. Consequently, the Tahsildar may and should
enter the decree-holders' names with their respective
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
extents/share ratios in the existing RTC forthwith,
reserving the technical act of subdivision for a later stage.
16. Only where a party insists on issuance of
independent RTC/Khata for a specifically delineated parcel
in terms of the final decree's boundaries does the
requirement of an 11-E sketch become essential, as it
enables precise measurement, Geographic identification
and creation of sub-numbers. Any insistence on an 11-E
sketch as a precondition for basic name mutation in the
parent record conflates these distinct processes,
unnecessarily delays fiscal reflection of judicially
determined rights, and is legally unsustainable.
17. Even assuming a situation where a Civil Court
grants a declaratory or partition decree declaring the
plaintiff as owner to a specified extent or share in a joint
family or ancestral property, such decree, being the
product of judicial adjudication by a competent court,
must be promptly given effect in the revenue records. The
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
parent RTC should immediately reflect the name of the
decree-holder alongside other co-sharers to the extent of
the share declared in the decree. This ensures that the
revenue record remains consistent with the judicially
determined ownership and prevents any scope for
fraudulent or collusive transactions by the judgment-
debtor or any party who has suffered the decree.
18. If the decree-holder subsequently desires
issuance of an independent RTC or Khata for the specific
parcel of land allotted to his or her share under the final
decree complete with boundaries and sub-division, then
and only then would the requirement of an 11-E sketch
become mandatory, since the sketch facilitates technical
demarcation and sub-division of the survey number for
individual identification. However, the insistence on an 11-
E sketch at the stage of initial mutation in the parent RTC
is legally misplaced and defeats the fundamental purpose
of fiscal recording envisaged under Section 128 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
19. Failure to implement such decrees in the parent
RTC has serious legal and administrative consequences
and unnecessary creation of third party rights . It confers
an unintended and unlawful advantage upon the party who
has lost the litigation, enabling them to create third-party
interests or alienate the property under the pretext of
existing revenue entries, thereby frustrating the civil
court's decree. Such inaction forces decree-holders to re-
approach the civil court for enforcement, thereby
multiplying litigation and burdening the judiciary with
avoidable proceedings.
20. This gap has resulted in frequent situations
where decree-holders, despite having obtained a binding
decree from a competent civil court, are unable to secure
corresponding entries in the Record of Rights (RTC),
thereby allowing the losing parties to retain control over
the revenue records and to create third-party rights
contrary to judicial determinations. Such inaction
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
undermines the finality of court decrees and runs counter
to the intent of Sections 128 and 135 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964, which mandate that revenue
records be amended in conformity with judicial
declarations.
21. To prevent such anomalies and uphold the
finality of judicial decrees, the Kaveri 2.0 software must
incorporate a dedicated provision for mutation based on
civil court decrees whether declaratory, preliminary, final,
or compromise so that revenue authorities can digitally
record and update ownership in the parent RTC without
delay. This integration would not only ensure compliance
with Sections 128 and 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964, but also strengthen the integrity of the State's
digital land record ecosystem by aligning judicial
determinations with administrative implementation.
22. Consequently, the current configuration of
Kaveri 2.0 inadvertently creates a legal vacuum, treating
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
decrees of competent Civil Courts as if they were extra-
statutory or non-existent for mutation purposes, thereby
compelling citizens to seek multiple endorsements,
verifications, and certifications for matters conclusively
decided by courts of law. This scenario frustrates the
object of Section 128, which seeks to ensure that all
acquisitions of rights whether by act of parties or
operation of law are duly recorded in the revenue
registers, and also contravenes Section 135, which
requires revenue records to be amended in accordance
with judicial declarations.
23. Need for Integration of Judicial Decrees
Into Digital Revenue Systems:
To restore coherence between judicial adjudication
and administrative execution, and to ensure that binding
civil court decrees automatically receive recognition within
the State's digital revenue infrastructure, the following
directions are issued. The present Kaveri 2.0 framework,
being primarily transaction-oriented (sale, gift, mortgage,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
inheritance), does not adequately accommodate mutations
arising from civil court decrees. This has resulted in
recurring administrative ambiguity when revenue
authorities attempt to give effect to judicially declared
rights.
24. Objective and Scope of Directions:
These guidelines are intended to:
(i) Clarify the distinction between mutation
based on a civil court decree and hissa (sub-
division) proceedings; and
(ii) Mandate necessary enhancements to Kaveri
2.0 and its integration with Bhoomi and
Mojini 2 to facilitate seamless
implementation of decree-based mutations.
25. Mutation Based on Decree vs. Hissa
Proceedings:
A. Mutation Pursuant to Civil Court Decree
I. When a civil court declares, confirms, or
recognizes ownership rights whether under a
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
declaratory, preliminary, final, or compromise
decree, the same shall be reflected in the
parent RTC without delay.
II. The names of all sharers and their respective
extents, as determined by the decree, shall be
entered in the owner's or remarks column of
the parent RTC.
B. Hissa Proceedings (Sub-Division)
I. When a final decree allots specific parcels with
metes and bounds, a sub-division of the parent
survey number becomes necessary for issuance
of separate RTCs or Khatas.
II. This process requires ground measurement and
preparation of an 11-E sketch, ensuring
alignment with cadastral boundaries.
III. The 11-E sketch is required only when the
decree-holder seeks an independent RTC or
intends to alienate an undivided share or
specific portion with boundaries as indicated in
final decree and not for mere reflection of
ownership in the parent RTC.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
26. Circumstances Requiring an 11-E Sketch
I. Where separate Khata issuance or alienation
of the allotted portion is sought, submission
of an 11-E sketch is mandatory.
II. The sketch ensures conformity between the
intended alienation and approved survey sub-
divisions.
III. Where the applicant seeks only entry of their
proportionate share in the parent RTC, the
insistence on an 11-E sketch is impermissible.
27. Software Enhancement and System
Integration:
The Departments of Stamps & Registration and
Revenue, in collaboration with CSG, shall introduce a new
workflow within Kaveri 2.0 titled "Mutation Based on Civil
Court Decree."
A. Mandatory Features of the New Module:
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
(i) Upload and authentication of civil court decrees
(preliminary, final, or compromise or
declaratory Decrees);
(ii) Auto-generation of a digital mutation request
(J-Slip) to Bhoomi, mapping decree particulars
to survey numbers;
(iii) Interface to record proportionate shares in the
parent RTC;
(iv) Provision to attach 11-E sketches when sub-
division is sought.
B. System Distinctions
The software shall clearly differentiate between:
(i) Mutation of Decree Without Sub-Division, and
(ii) Sub-Division Based on Final or Compromise
Decree, thereby eliminating procedural
confusion.
28. Administrative Procedure
I. Upon receiving an application or electronic
request based on a civil decree, the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
Tahsildar/Revenue Inspector shall verify the
decree through e-Courts or the certified copy
and update the parent RTC with names and
shares of decree-holders.
II. If the applicant seeks a separate Khata or
intends to alienate the allotted portion:
(i) An 11-E sketch from a licensed
surveyor shall be obtained;
(ii) Upon verification, a new sub-survey
number shall be created
corresponding to the demarcated
parcel.
29. Legal and Operational Basis:
I. These directions give effect to the statutory
mandate under Sections 128 and 135 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, ensuring
that judicially determined rights are promptly
reflected in revenue records.
II. The clarified distinction between mutation and
sub-division preserves the sanctity of civil
decrees while maintaining survey accuracy.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
III. Failure to record decrees in the parent RTC
enables the losing party to create third-party
interests contrary to court orders and leads to
avoidable litigation.
IV. Integration of decree-based workflows into
Kaveri 2.0 enhances transparency, reduces
human error, and strengthens the alignment
between judicial decisions and administrative
compliance.
30. Implementation and Oversight
I. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
shall constitute a joint legal-technical
committee to design and implement these
system modifications within six months.
II. Compliance shall be monitored through
periodic audits at the taluk level.
III. All circulars inconsistent with these directions
stand modified to this extent.
IV. Consequently, the endorsement dated
19.08.2024 issued by respondent
No.3/Tahsildar in No. RRT(2)C.R:219/24-25 is
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151
WP No. 26357 of 2024
HC-KAR
unsustainable. Refusal to effect mutation based
on the final decree amounts to failure to
discharge the statutory duty under Sections
128 and 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act.
31. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be
allowed with the following directions:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The endorsement dated 19.08.2024 issued by respondent No.3-Tahsildar bearing No. RRT(2)CR:219/2024-25 is hereby quashed.
(iii) The respondents are directed to effect mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records strictly in accordance with the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.40/2023.
(iv) It is made clear that if the software in its present form does not accept the petitioner's application in the absence of an 11-E sketch, the Tahsildar shall accept a physical application as a one-time
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47151 WP No. 26357 of 2024 HC-KAR exception and effect the mutation accordingly.
(v) The Tahsildar may thereafter, on an application seeking sub-division, carry out the sub-division corresponding to the specific extents allotted to the respective parties under the decree, and shall accordingly issue the 11-E sketch and issue individual khatas.
(vi) The entire exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(vii) The learned Additional Government Pleader is directed to forthwith communicate a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, for necessary instructions and for ensuring uniform implementation of similar judicial decrees across the digital revenue platforms.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2/CT:SI