Disposed

Venkatachala Reddy v. the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2021WP/13300/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the respondent Tahsildar's inaction in disposing of revenue mutation proceedings pending for six years. The Court observed the delay was inexplicable. Instead of issuing a writ for immediate transfer, the petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to move the respondent for an early hearing of the pending dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction to file representation seeking early hearing of pending mutation proceedings with limit of six months for adjudication.

Venkatachala Reddy Vs the Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 13300/2019 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

VENKATACHALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SRI KONDA REDDY R/AT 60/5, 3^RD MAIN ROAD SARAKKI, J P NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJU M. K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK MYSURU - 570 001.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA )

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT

¶15

¶16

AUTHORITY TO EFFECT TRANSFER OF KATHA, MUTATION AND RTC PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY BEARING SY. NO. 105 MEASURING 1 ACRE 15 GUNTAS SITUATED AT HINAKAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN, BY FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW, RULES AND REGULATIONS;

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of direction to the Tahsildar, Mysuru (the respondent) to enter the revenue records, including the RTC, for the land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas in Survey No. 105 of Hinakal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District-the subject property in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner’s case is that Sri. K Vittal Rao, the original owner of the subject property, sold this property in favour of Sri. Kuragahalli Siddaiah under the sale deed dated

¶21

¶22

31.05.1965. On the demise of Sri.Kuragahalli Siddaiah, his legal heirs and successors continued as owners of the subject property, and the revenue entries for the subject property was mutated in favour of Sri Rame Gowda @ Ramanna. Subsequently, Sri Rame Gowda @ Ramanna and his brother, Sri Sidde Gowda @ Siddanna transferred the subject property in favour of the purchaser under the sale deed dated 07.08.2014. The respondent, despite receipt of ‘J’ Slip from the concerned Sub Registrar’s office as contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964/Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, did not take any action to give effect to such sale deed in the revenue records.

¶23

The petitioner’s further case is that in the meanwhile, Smt. Vishalakshi and others, filed objections contesting the transfer of the revenue entries for the subject property in favour of the petitioner asserting that appropriate proceedings in this regard are pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru in Revision Petition No. 18/2014-15.

¶24

¶25

Therefore, the respondent has registered the petitioner’s application as a dispute in RRT (D) 308/2014-2015. The proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 18/2014-2015 is dismissed on 29.1.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner has again approached the respondent with application on 02.03.2019. The respondent has not taken any action, and the respondent’s failure amounts to abdication of duty under the provisions of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the relevant Rules in Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Therefore, a relative mandamus to the respondent would be justified.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard, and it remains undisputed that the proceedings before the respondent in RRT (D) 308/2014-2015 is still pending consideration and has not been disposed of. The failure to

¶27

¶28

consider and dispose of such proceedings over six years would be inexplicable in law. Therefore, the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation enclosing a certified copy of this order requesting for early hearing of the proceedings in RRT (D) 308/20142015. The petitioner shall file such representation with the respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondent upon receiving such representation shall take such every measure as would be required in law for adjudication of the proceedings in RRT (D) 308/2014-2015, and the respondent shall so consider and dispose of the aforesaid proceedings expeditiously but within an outer limit of six months from the date of first hearing in

¶31

¶32

such proceedings after the petitioner’s

¶33

representation.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

AN/-

Venkatachala Reddy v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatachala Reddy v. the Tahsildar

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

Jowherunnisa W/O Nazeer Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Girijamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Narasimha Reddy a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Biju Thomas Vs Sri. Sebastian Moolechalil Joseph

Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka

K K Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka