Allowed

Sri Rangegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2021WP/10163/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed this writ petition quashing an endorsement that rejected the petitioner's request for a computerized RTC. The Court directed the revenue authorities to consider the petitioner's representations and update records for the granted land within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of endorsement dated 18.02.2020; Liberty to petitioner to make detailed representation; Respondents to take measures and inform within eight weeks.

Sri Rangegowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10163/2021 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI RANGEGOWDA S/O ANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDENT OF KARIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYA PATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT, M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 212.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR CHANNARAYA PATNA TALUK CHANNARAYA PATNA HASSAN - 573 124.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By SRI. A.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.02.2020 IN NO.RRT(THI)(HI)/190/1920 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 UNDER ANNEXURE-G; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 22.03.2016, 23/11/2016 AND 14/08/2019 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE COMPUTERIZED RTC IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.101 MEASURING 01 ACRES SITUATED AT KARIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HIRISAAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYA PATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, UNDER ANNEXURE-F,R1 AND R2 TO WRIT PETITION.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner, who contends that he has the benefit of regularization of his unauthorized occupation of the land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.35/ [subsequently re-numbered as Sy.No.1012] of Karikyathanahalli Village, Hirisaave Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District with the grant thereof, has preferred this petition calling in question the endorsement dated 18.02.2020 [referred to as, ‘ the impugned

¶21

¶22

endorsement ’] issued by the Tahsildar, Channarayapatna Taluk, Channarayapatna, Hassan.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be indisputable that the petitioner is granted land for the subject property with the issuance of Form No.1 and the later revenue entries in his favour. In the subsequent survey proceedings, the subject property is assigned new survey number No.101 and the RTC is also updated accordingly in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has the advantage of RTC for 1 acre of land in Sy.No.101 of Karikyathanahalli Village, Hirisaave Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District until the RTCs are computerized. But thereafter the respondents have not issued computerized RTCs for the subject land. The petitioner’s repeated representations are rejected by the impugned endorsement. It is reasoned that because the land is assigned with new

¶24

¶25

Sy.No.101, the petitioner’s request for computerized pahani cannot be considered.

¶26

If indeed there is a grant in favour of the petitioner

¶27

and there is also a subsequent durasti proceedings with the subject land being granted a new survey number, the respondents must ascertain all the records and take necessary measures to ensure that the petitioner has the advantage of the necessary revenue records lest the substantial right granted to the petitioner is undermined without even a consideration. The petitioner’s request, with the grant and subsequent durasth , could not have been requested on the ground that a portion of the land in Sy No. 39 is assigned survey number. Therefore, the impugned endorsement dated 18.02.2020 cannot be sustained. As such, the following:

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

a) The writ petition is allowed quashing the

¶31

endorsement dated 18.02.2020 by the Tahsildar, Channarayapatna Taluk, Channarayapatna, Hassan-the third respondent with liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation with both the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Division, Hassan Taluk and the Tahsildar, Channarayapatna Taluk (second and third respondents) enclosing all the documents requesting for necessary action to update the revenue records for the land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.101 of Karikyathanahalli Village, Hirisaave Hobli, Channaraya Patna Taluk, Hassan District.

¶32

b) If the petitioner submits such representation within four [4] weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order enclosing a copy thereof, the

¶33

¶34

second and third respondents shall take appropriate measures considering all the circumstances and inform the petitioner in writing about the measures taken within the next eight weeks.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

Sri Rangegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rangegowda 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

Kaveri Retreats and Resorts Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Y N Shankare Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Renukamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Chandraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Krishna Murthy Vs State of Karnataka by