Allowed

Sri. Choudary G. R. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2019WP/17866/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Judgment involves a writ petition where petitioners sought to direct the Tahasildar and Deputy Tahasildar to fix boundaries for their purchased land. The Court allowed the petitions, fixing a four-month timeline for the authorities to complete the survey and incorporate necessary entries after inaction for over two years.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to complete the survey and fix boundaries of Sy. No. 16/P6 within four months from the date of receipt of this order.

Sri. Choudary G. R. Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos.17866-17867/2019 (KLR–RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.CHOUDARY G.R., S/O SRI.VEERASAWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, NEAR LAKE VIEW TOWNSHIP, T.C.PALYA MAIN ROAD, BASKO NAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 036.

¶8

SRI.NAGARAJ M., S/O SRI.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.98/4, 7^TH CROSS, AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR, BENGALURU – 560 071.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V.K., ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVANA,

¶14

¶15

K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶16

THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, NADAKACHERI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.A.C.BALARAJ, AGA)

¶19

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3 FOR FIXING OF NECESSARY BOUNDARIES OF THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY.NO.16/P6, FOR AN EXTENT OF 0-20 GUNTAS EACH TO THE PETITIONERS, SITUATED AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, AND THEREAFTER TO INCORPORATE NECESSARY KATHA AND REVENUE ENTRIES IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Narayana Swamy V.K., learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri A.C. Balaraj, learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

¶23

Petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the

¶24

property measuring 20 guntas each in Sy. No.16/P6 of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru

¶25

¶26

South Taluk, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 25.10.2007 (Annexure-A and A1). As such, they are seeking for conducting survey and podi durasti and an application came to be submitted to respondent No.2 on 4.1.2017 (AnnexureC) in that regard. Pursuant to same, respondent No.2 has intimated respondent No.3, by an official reminder dated 9.1.2017 (Annexure-D) to forward report in that regard. It is thereafter, steps have not been taken either by respondent No.2 or by respondent No.3. Hence, petitioners are before this Court for a writ of mandamus being issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to complete the process of conducting survey and fixing the boundary of the subject land bearing Sy. No.16/P6 to an extent of 20 guntas each situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶27

Having regard to the fact that petitioners have already submitted an application to respondent No.2 on 4.1.2017 (Annexure-C) and said respondent having

¶28

¶29

intimated respondent No.3 to forward a report in that regard, it would be suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondents to complete the process expeditiously within a time frame.

¶30

Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed.

¶31

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation dated 4.1.2017 (Annexure-C) expeditiously and at any rate, within a outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶32

Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file

¶33

memo of appearance with four weeks from today.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

CS CT:SN

Sri. Choudary G. R. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Choudary G. R. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. M. Sathish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Haleshappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Shettappa Vs Deputy Director of Land Records

The Union of India Vs Sri G P Chandrashekarappa

Sri K Balakrishna Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Kalamma Vs G P Chandrashekarappa