Partly allowed

Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2021WP/15219/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Karnataka High Court directed the Tahsildar of Yelahanka to consider the petitioner's request to enter her name in the RTC for a property. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to have her name entered per sale and rectification deeds and to consider the request under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed in part; the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's request for change in revenue entries in accordance with Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 19

Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 15219/2020 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

JAYAMMA W/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O MARASANDRA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHANTARADDI SOMARADDI MULIMANI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE SENIOR SUB - REGISTRAR YELAHANKA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR YELAHANKA

¶14

¶15

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO FOR MUTATE AND RECTIFY AS PER THE DEED OF DECLARATION DATED 05.04.2019 AT ANNEXURE-C; ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO ENTER THE CORRECT SURVEY NUBMER I.E., 55 INSTEAD OF 57/4 MEASURING 4 ACRES SITUATED AT MARASANDRA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK IN THE NAME OF PURCHASER B.S. ASHOK S/O B.G. SOMASHEKHAR.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the Tahsildar, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore (the third respondent) to enter her name in the RTC for Sy.No.55 of Marasandra village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.

¶22

¶23

The petitioner's case is that her family members purchased the land in Sy.No.55 of Marasandra village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under the sale deed dated 06.10.1997. Though the subject property is correctly mentioned in the schedule appended to the sale deed, in the recitals the property has been wrongly referred to as Sy.No.57/4. This error has been corrected by the subsequent Rectification Deed dated 12.12.2011. Despite this Rectification Deed, the concerned did not take any measure to enter the petitioner's name in RTC for the subject property and therefore the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 24845 & 36138-141 & 36142/2012 and other connected matters which is disposed of by order dated 11.09.2012 allowing the petition and directing the SubRegistrar, Yelahanka to do the needful.

¶24

¶25

It is seen that after the disposal of the aforesaid writ petitions, a Deed of Declaration dated 05.04.2019 is executed and registered, and the declarant (who has also executed the Rectification Deed dated 12.12.2011) has affirmed that the property transferred in favour of the petitioner's family members under the Sale Deed dated 06.10.1997 is the subject property. The third respondent despite these documents, and turn of events, has not considered the petitioner’s request for entering her name in the RTC for the subject property. In the facts and circumstances, it would be incumbent on the third respondent to consider the petitioner's request for change in the revenue entries in the RTC for the subject property in accordance with Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore, the following

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

[a] The petition is allowed in part, and the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's request for change in the revenue entries in her favour for the subject property in accordance with the due process as contemplated in Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Rules therein.

¶29

[b] The petitioner is permitted to file a detailed representation enclosing a certified copy of this order with the third respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

SD/JUDGE

¶31

Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayamma 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

Sri.S.P.Vasantha Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Siddharth Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commisioner of Public Instructions

Smt. Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Manoours Vs the State of Karnataka

Garlapati Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

N M Manjunath Vs the Tahsildar