Disposed

Smt Shanthamma S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2021WP/10427/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the exclusion of revenue entries, the petitioner sought restoration of land records. The High Court, instead of immediate disposal, directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation along with specific enclosures within four weeks for the Tahsildar to consider under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's detailed representation along with specific enclosures within eight weeks.

Smt Shanthamma S Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10427 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Smt. Shanthamma S. Aged about 63 years W/o Venkatarama S Residing at Chagalatti Village Jala Hobli Yelahanka Taluk Bengaluru – 562 149

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. Ranjan Kumar K., Advocate)

¶10

AND :

¶11

The State of Karnataka By its Secretary

¶12

Revenue Department M.S.Building Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi

¶13

Bengaluru – 560 001

¶14

The Tahsildar

¶15

Yelahanka Taluk Yelahanka – 560 063

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Sri.R.Srinivas Gowda, AGA)

¶18

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 And 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 10.02.2021 Annexure-E submitted by the petitioner and etc.

¶20

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who appears for the respondents, are heard for final disposal. The petitioner prays for a direction to the Tahsildhar, Yelahanka Taluk, Yelahanka [the second respondent] to consider her representation dated 10.02.2021 and to restore the revenue entries for the land measuring 4 acres in Survey No.80 of Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk (‘ the subject land’ ).

¶23

The petitioner’s case is that the subject land

¶24

is allotted to her in the proceedings in No.LNDS.R(1) 102/81-82 and she has had the benefit of revenue entries for the subject land until the year 1992-93.

¶25

¶26

Thereafter, the revenue entries in her favour are excluded. She was not aware of the same until the month of January 2021 when the concerned Surveyor took up the measurement of the land in Survey No.80 of Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk at the instance of Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation. When she approached the second respondent, she was informed that she should make a representation and accordingly the representation dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure-E) is submitted. However, no action is initiated for consideration of the said representation.

¶27

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Tahsildhar will have to verify the authenticity of the petitioner’s assertions and undertake necessary exercise as contemplated under Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 even if the revenue entries for the subject land are to be updated in favour of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances

¶28

¶29

of the case and the submissions now made, the petition stands disposed of by the following:-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

a) The petitioner is permitted to submit a detailed representation with the Tahsildhar, Yelahanka Taluk, Yelahanka [the second respondent] enclosing copies of Annexures-A, B and C and a certified copy of this order. The petitioner may file such representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶32

b) If the petitioner submits such representation along with the enclosures as aforesaid, the second respondent shall consider the same in compliance of the provisions of Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and inform the petitioner about the status of

¶33

¶34

such consideration in writing within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

MDS

Smt Shanthamma S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shanthamma S 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

K C Rohith Vs the Prl. Secretary

K C Udaya Vs the Prl. Secretary

Smt. P. Bramaramba Vs Dr. Tulip Chamany

Rajanna H D Vs the State of Karnataka Represented by

Smt Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Angasagiriyappa Vs the Thashildar