Disposed

Sri. Puttaswamy Nayaka v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2021WP/15686/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a land survey endorsement and mandamus for conducting survey, phode, and fixing boundaries for 3 acres 19 guntas in Survey No.5. Court permitted filing a representation and directed authorities to inform on the initial survey results.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation; Authorities directed to inform petitioner of initial survey findings within eight weeks; Liberty to initiate further proceedings if aggrieved.

Sri. Puttaswamy Nayaka Vs the Deputy… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 15686/2016 (KLR -RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI.PUTTASWAMY NAYAKA, DEAD BY LRS.,

¶8

SMT.CHANNAMMA,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI.PUTTASWAMY NAYAKA,

¶10

SMT.JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, (DAUGHTER) W/O SRI.KEMPANAIKA,

¶11

SMT.MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, (DAUGHTER), W/O SRI.DEVANAIKA,

¶12

SMT.GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (DAUGHTER), W/O SRI.JAVARANAIKA,

¶13

SRI.BASAVA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶14

S/O LATE SRI.PUTTASWAMY NAIKA,

¶15

¶16

SRI.RAMA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.PUTTASWAMY NAIKA,

¶17

SMT.CHIKKA THAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, (DAUGHTER), W/O SRI.MAHADEVA NAIKA,

¶18

SMT.THAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, (DAUGHTER), W/O DEVADARA NAIKA,

¶19

SRI.SHANKARA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.PUTTASWAMY NAIKA,

¶20

SMT.PUTTAMMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, (DAUGHTER), W/O SRI.SIDDANAIKA,

¶21

SRI.GOOLI NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.PUTTASWAMY NAIKA,

¶22

SMT.SAVITHRI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O GOVIDARAJU, ALL RESIDENTS ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NAGARATHA HALLI, RAYANAKERE & (PO), JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE – 570 008.

¶23

...PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI.S.M.BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

AND

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE – 570 001.

¶28

THE THASLIDAR, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE – 574 001.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

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

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AS THE CASE MAY BE, QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO: Ta: BOO.SHA: 11 (E) SKETCH 26040415197468/2015, DATED 22-12-2015, ANNEXURE-D; 2) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE, DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO PROCEED TO CONDUCT SURVEY, PHODE AND FIX BOUNDARIES TO THEL AND IN QUESTION BEARING S.NO:5 OF NAGARATHAHALLI, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, TO THE EXTENT OF 3 ACRES AND 19 GUNTAS AND ETC.,

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent are heard. The petitioner, who claims under Sri Puttaswamy Naika - the original petitioner, has continued the writ petition on the demise of the original petitioner.

¶36

Sri Puttaswamy Naika - the original petitioner

¶37

has impugned the Endorsement dated 20.12.2015 issued by the Survey Supervisor, Department of Land Survey, Mysore informing him that the land in Survey No. 5 of Nagarathahalli village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk is shown as ‘B’ kharab in the survey settlement Akarbandh and unless the requisite report is filed by the concerned Village Accountant and durasthi is completed in the manner known to law, the petitioners’ request for issuance of 11E sketch for an extent of 34

¶38

¶39

guntas out of total extent of 3 acres 19 guntas cannot be considered. In addition to seeking quashing of this Endorsement dated 20.12.2015, the petitioner has also sought for issuance of mandamus to the Tahsildar, Mysore [the second respondent] to complete the durasth and phodi work if the total land in Survey No.5 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas of Nagarathahalli village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶40

Sri S. M. Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the petitioner's title to the subject land and though the impugned endorsement is issued way back in the year 2015, no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner would confine the petition to the relief for issuance of mandamus. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that he is instructed to place on record by the jurisdictional

¶41

¶42

Tahsildar-the second respondent-that the survey of the land in Survey No.5 of Nagarthahalli village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk would be taken up first, and after receiving reports from the Village Accountant the necessary orders in this regard would be made by the Assistant Director of Land Records. However, if there are discrepancies regarding the measurement of land or the nature of kharab in this survey number, a more detailed survey will have to be conducted The initial survey would be completed within three months. But in the event, a wider survey becomes necessary, the authority would require a minimum of one year to complete the exercise.

¶43

It is obvious from the submissions that the authorities propose to undertake a two stage survey without seriously disputing the petitioner’s rights to the land in Survey No. 5 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas of

¶44

¶45

Nagarathahalli village, Jayapura hobli, Mysore Taluk; the first exercise is to ascertain the extent and the nature of the kharab in this land. This exercise as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate could be completed within two weeks. If the petitioner’s grievance is redressed at this stage, the next larger survey would not be necessary. In the light of these circumstances, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

[a] The writ petition stands disposed of

¶48

permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation with the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mysore Taluk and the Tahsildar, Mysore Sub-division, Mysore for durasth of the land measuring 3 acres 19 guntas in Survey No.5 of Nagarathahalli village, Jayapura hobli, Mysore Taluk. The petitioner shall submit such representation enclosing a certified copy of this order

¶49

¶50

within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶51

[b] If such representation is filed, the Tahsildar, Mysore sub-division and the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mysore Taluk shall inform in writing the petitioner [within Eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation] about the first phase of the survey to ascertain the extent/boundary and the nature of the kharab in the aforesaid land.

¶52

[c] The petitioner shall be at liberty to initiate all such further proceedings as would be permissible in law if aggrieved by the outcome of the initial survey.

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

MBB

Sri. Puttaswamy Nayaka v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Puttaswamy Nayaka v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Shri Manoours Vs the State of Karnataka

Garlapati Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

N M Manjunath Vs the Tahsildar

Sri Venkatarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Narasamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Chikkamuniyappa @ Muniyappa Dead by Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka