The High Court dismissed the writ appeal. It held that entries in RTC are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer or take away title. The appeal failed, and the single judge's order directing a computerized RTC was not interfered with.
Written appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021 PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT APPEAL NO.3488 OF 2015 (KLR-RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
4 . THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 6TH FLOOR, MAHAVEER COMPLEX K.G. ROAD BANGALORE -560 009.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)
AND:
... RESPONDENT
SRI HANUMANARASAIAH S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMIPURA DASANAPURA HOBLI - 562 123 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE & SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE ON I.A. 1/2017)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/02/2013 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 24624/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND ORDER DATED 30/10/2014 MADE IN REVIEW PETITION NO.319/2014 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 13th February, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the respondent herein. The operative part of the judgment and order which is impugned reads thus:
” In view of the facts and circumstances and submissions made by the counsels and further in the light of the report made by the Thasildar in No.LND.CR-301/2009-10 dated 05.10.2010 it is seen that the petitioner has been granted the said land in the year 1967. If any action is to be initiated, it is only as per law by following due procedure. Till then the Thasildar is directed to issue computerized RTC, which is to be complied within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
(underline supplied)
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the letter dated 19.03.2012 addressed by the Enforcement Cell of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore in No.VG/BN/CR/05/11-12 produced at Annexure-R;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to record Computerized RTC in the name of the petitioner with respect to land in question after the years 1997-98."
From a perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it
is apparent that both the prayers were not granted by the learned Single Judge. There was no order issued
by the learned Single Judge directing the appellants herein to record computerized RTC in the name of the respondent herein (writ petitioner). In fact, the learned Single Judge permitted action to be initiated after following due procedure. The only direction issued by the learned Single Judge is to issue a computerized RTC.
applicants are concerned and the said issue is left open
to be decided by the competent Court.
dismissed. Pending applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
vgh*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order directing the issuance of a computerized RTC.
Whether manual Record of Rights (RTC) is considered title-deed.
State of Karnataka
Hanumanarasaiah
Abhay S. Oka
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
