The Karnataka High Court identified a serious loophole in the Kaveri 2.0 software, pointing out that the system has no provision for entry of court decrees as the software “treats decrees, whether declaratory, preliminary, final or compromise, etc., of the relevant civil courts as if they were extra-statutory or non-existent for the purpose of mutation”.
The absence of a provision in the software to incorporate civil court decrees undermines the finality of court decrees and defeats the intent of Sections 128 and 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which mandate that revenue records be amended in accordance with judicial pronouncements, the High Court observed.
Immediately
The High Court also directed the State Government to take steps within six months to introduce a new workflow in Kaveri 2.0 called “Mutation based on Civil Court Decree” for mutation, based on all types of civil court decrees, to ensure that the names of all shares and their respective extent as determined by the decree are entered in the owners column or remarks of the parent RTC without any delay.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued the directions while allowing the petition filed by Gilbert Vas and his four brothers of Naricombu village in Bantwal taluk of Dakshina Kannada district.
Pursuant to the compromise decree in the civil court, the petitioners applied to the tahsildar for alteration of the khata of the decreed lands. However tahsildar asked them to make pre-mutation sketch for khata change as Kaveri 2.0 software allows khata change only with production of 11E sketch.
Changes are needed
Kaveri 2.0 should have necessary integration with Bhoomi and Mojini-2 software for implementation of decrees and for recording and verification of civil court decrees; automatic generation of Digital Mutation Request (J-Slip) for Bhoomi; mapping ordinance details to survey numbers; an interface for recording pro rata shares in the parent RTC and a provision for attaching 11-E sketches when a distribution is required by decree, the court said.
This vacuum in the software, the High Court said, leads to frequent situations where the decree holders, despite receiving a binding decree from the concerned civil court, have not been able to secure adequate entries in the revenue records such as Record of Rights (RTC) as the authorities insist on submitting other documents such as revised land sketches etc.
Serious consequences
Failure to make records in the parent RTC pursuant to judicial decrees has serious legal and administrative consequences and unnecessary creation of third party rights, as such vacuum gives unintended and illegal advantage to the party who lost the litigation or others.
This enables them to create third-party interests or alienate property on the pretext of existing income, thereby thwarting civil court orders, the High Court pointed out.
The lack of provision for the insertion of judicial decrees forces decree holders to approach the civil court again for enforcement, thereby multiplying litigation and burdening the judiciary with avoidable proceedings, Justice Magadum pointed out.
Published – 24 Nov 2025 20:23 IST
