District Revenue Officer must decide the UDR-correction representation on merits after a hearing within eight weeks.

The petitioner claimed title to agricultural lands in Kukuttamaruthahalli Village, including 12 cents in S.No. 632/2 and land in S.No. 632/2B, under registered conveyances and settlement deeds

The Taluk Head Surveyor reportedly identified a boundary-length discrepancy and proposed corrections to the Updating Registry (UDR) records

The petitioner’s representation dated 18 August 2026 seeking correction of the UDR records remained pending, leading her to seek a writ of mandamus

Whether the District Revenue Officer should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s pending representation concerning alleged UDR errors

Whether the Court should grant the requested substantive relief of correcting the records and issuing a separate patta, or confine its direction to consideration of the representation

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking mandamus

The Court directed the competent revenue authority to consider the representation on its merits, in accordance with law, and after affording the petitioner a personal hearing

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s title, the accuracy of the UDR entries, or her entitlement to a separate patta.

Instead, noting that the representation remained pending and recording the Government Advocate’s submission that it would be considered, the Court required the District Revenue Officer to examine the relevant documents and decide the representation on its merits and in accordance with law

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs