ORDER
H.N. Narayan, J
1. The petitioner's father is the purchaser of the land to an extent of 35 guntas in Sy. No. 91/1B of Kachapur Village, Badami Taluk, Bijapur District, from 3rd respondent-Parwatewwa under a registered sale deed dated 2-8-1971. It appears that the petitioner gave a vardhi in the year 1990 to the Deputy Tahsildar, Guledgud requesting him to enter the name of his father in the record of rights. Incidentally, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a minor at the time of purchase of the land. There was some delay in making such vardhi to the Deputy Tahsildar. Since the report was made after ten years after the petitioner attained majority, the Deputy Tahsildarrejected to effect the change of mutation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Tahsildar has no such jurisdiction to reject his application for change of mutation even after sufficient time from the date of registration of the document. Proviso to Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 imposes a statutory duty on the Revenue Officer concerned to effect the change of mutation without reporting the same to him by such person. A person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document is exempted from such obligation to report to such officer. Section 128(4) further clarifies this position. Where a person was paid the prescribed registration fee for making necessary entries in the record of rights and registers referred to in Section 129; and on registration of such document, the Registering Authority shall make a report of the acquisition of the right to the prescribed officer and he shall make necessary entries in the revenue records.
2. This position is clarified by a few decisions of this Court viz., Govinda Hari Kulkarni v Land Tribunal, Hukkeri and Another and B.L. Somanna v State of Karnataka and Another.
3. In the case of B.L. Somanna, supra, it is specifically laid down that it is mandatory on the part of the Registering Authority to make a report mandatory on the part of the prescribed officer to enter in the register of mutation any such report received. The failure of the Registering Authority to report and the prescribed officer to make entries cannot be allowed to prejudice the purchaser.
4. Insofar as the delay in making such vardhi is concerned, this Court in Golappa v Malakappa and Another, has clarified this position by stating as follows:
'Neither Section 128 nor Section 129 of the Act prescribes any period for filing an application seeking mutation in case of acquisition of a right. Since the execution of the sale deed is not disputed either before Revenue Courts or before this Court, ex facie, for the purpose of the Act, it has to be taken that the document confers a good title on the petitioner and therefore, it was incumbent to enter the petitioners name in owners column viz., Column 4 of the record of rights'.
5. In the light of the statutory provisions enumerated in Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the law laid down by this Court, the Revenue Authorities could not have refused the vardhi and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The authorities concerned are directed to effect change of mutation on the basis of the registered document and to note the guidelines issued by this Court in that regard and to certify the mutation entry.