Allowed

Shivalingaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2019WP/32952/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed seeking direction to lower revenue authorities to comply with an impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner regarding mutation of land records. The Court, noting petitioner's compliance with fees and possession, held that compliance was mandated under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus issued directing the Tahsildar to comply with the order dated 22.07.2013 dated 22.07.2013 within four weeks from receipt of this order.

Shivalingaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.32952 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND WRIT PETITION NO.22885 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ SAVALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT DADADAPURA, GOGGEGOWDANAKOPPALU, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri K.M.SANATH KUMARA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR NAGAMANGALA TALUK, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By Sri Y.D.HARSHA, AGA)

¶16

¶17

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 TO CARRY OUT/OBEY THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA PASSED IN R.P.NO.63/2013 DATED 22.07.2013 AT ANNEX-L; DIRECT R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS DATED 06.04.1994 AT ANNEXURE-E AND DATED 01.03.2012 ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT R-2 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RELEVANT REVENUE RECORDS IN PURSUANCE OF THE SALE DATED 12.12.1955 AT ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY.NO.88/2 AND 88/4 MEASURING 1 ACRE 20 GUNTAS EACH.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The learned Government Advocate who is on

¶21

advance notice appears for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶22

Petitioner’s father is sought to have purchased

¶23

an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land each in Sy.Nos.88/2, 88/3 and 88/4 of Mylarpattana Village,

¶24

¶25

Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District under registered sale deed dated 12.12.1955. Pursuant to same, khatha of the land in respect of Sy.No.88/3 came to be mutated to the name of petitioner’s father. However, in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.88/2 and 88/4 was not mutated in the revenue records and it was reflected in the revenue records to the effect “Sarkaari Beelu”.

¶26

Hence, petitioner is said to have submitted a representation in the year 1974 for restoration of petitioner’s name in substitution to “Sarkaari Beelu”. The said representation having been considered by the Tahsildar in RRTCR No.910/1990-91, petitioner is said to have paid the land revenue for the said land in question for the years 1950-51 to 1990-91 vide Annexure – ‘B’. On notice being issued to the petitioner by the second respondent to pay further sum of Rs.300/- as fine for restoration including Rs.20/- of notice fee, same has been

¶27

¶28

paid on 30.08.1991 vide Annexure – ‘D’ by the petitioner.

¶29

However, name of the petitioner having not been restored in the revenue records, resulted in petitioner submitting one more representation on 06.04.1994 (Annexure – ‘E’) and said prayer was revived in the year 2004.

¶30

No steps were taken by respondent

¶31

authorities. Hence, petitioner renewed his request by submitting a representation dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure – ‘F’), upon which, subject land came to be surveyed by the jurisdictional surveyor and a report was submitted in respect of both the lands, i.e., Sy.Nos.88/2 and 88/4 as per the report dated ‘nil’ (Annexures – ‘G’ and ‘G1’). The jurisdictional revenue inspector after having conducted mahazar had also opined that petitioner is in possession of the subject lands vide mahazar dated ‘nil’ (Annexure –

¶32

‘J’). Subsequently, revenue inspector has submitted a

¶33

¶34

report on 21.08.2012 (Annexure – ‘K’) to the second respondent for restoration of petitioner’s name in substitution to “Sarkaari Beelu”. Hence, petitioner submitted an application to the Tahsildar, which came to be rejected by the second respondent on 06.10.2011 and being aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the first respondent in R.P.No.63 of 2013 who by order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure – ‘L’) allowed the revision petition and directed the second respondent to take steps in accordance with law, keeping in mind the Government Order dated 06.12.2012. On account of nonconsideration of the direction issued by the first respondent to the second respondent, petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Having regard to the afore-stated facts, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the present writ petitions since

¶36

¶37

petitioner is requesting only for carrying out or complying with the order passed by first respondent in R.P.No.63 of 2013 where-under first respondent has directed second respondent to take steps in accordance with the Government Order dated 06.12.2012 by considering the representation of the petitioner. That apart, petitioner having already deposited or paid the fee as well as the fine as directed by third respondent way back in the year 1991, there cannot be any impediment for the second respondent to consider said request made by the petitioner and take steps in accordance with law expeditiously and within a time frame.

¶38

Hence, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) Writ petitions are allowed.

¶41

ii) A writ of mandamus is issued to the second

¶42

respondent to comply with the order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure–‘L’) passed in R.P.No.

¶43

¶44

63 of 2013 by first respondent expeditiously and at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

Shivalingaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivalingaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Sri H v Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Kotesh Vs the Tahasildar

Sri B R Ravindra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N H Bhaskar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Muniraja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivalinga Swamy Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies