Disposed

Sri Y N Shankare Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2021WP/4794/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed seeking mandamus for the Tahsildar to complete durast and phodi of the petitioner's land. The court held that direct initiation by the Tahsildar was inapposite and instead permitted the petitioner to file an application with the Assistant Director of Land Records to commence the necessary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to file an application with the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mysore, for initation of durast and phodi proceedings.

Sri Y N Shankare Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4794/2015 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI Y. N. SHANKARE GOWDA S/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.99, 4^TH CROSS, SANMARGA, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSORE - 570 011.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M. R. VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS & SURVEY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS & SURVEY, K.R.CIRCLE, DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SRUVEY BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001

¶13

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 011.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 011.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 011.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 )

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE R-4 DATED 17.11.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO DO PODI-DURAST OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN SY. NO. 96/P21 OF VAJMANGAL VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE AS PER THE GRANT ORDER, SALE DEED AND RTC TO AN EXTENT OF 4 ACRE OF LAND IN ACCORDANE WITH LAW.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner, who asserts ownership of land

¶22

measuring 4 acres in Sy No. 96 of Vajamangala Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk - the subject land, has filed

¶23

¶24

this petition for mandamus to the Tahasildar, Mysore taluk, Mysore (the fifth respondent) to consider the petitioner’s representations for durast and phodi of the subject land. The petitioner, apart from tracing title to the subject property, relies upon the directive issued by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Mysore District Mysore (the fourth respondent) as per Annexure – H for conducting durast and phodi of the subject land.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land was granted to Sri Mayanna way back in the year 1945-46, and grant is also confirmed by appropriate orders in the year 1963-64. Thereafter, the subject land is identified as bearing survey No.96/P21, and the name of the grantee, Sri Mayanna is entered in the RTC. On the demise of the grantee, the revenue records for the subject land are mutated in favour of his sons, Sri Maye Gowda and Sri Hanume

¶26

¶27

Gowda vide INC 42/1985-86. The revenue records are continued in their names until the year 1995-96. The petitioner has purchased the subject land from the aforesaid Sri Maye Gowda and Sri Hanume Gowda under the sale deed dated 18.9.1996 and the revenue records have been made in his favour after such sale deed vide MR No.14/1996-97. The petitioner has been consistently following up with the authorities for durast and phodi of the subject land, and in fact the Deputy Director of Land Records, Mysore district, Mysore (the fourth respondent) has also directed the Tahasildar, Mysore taluk, Mysore (the fifth respondent) to conduct durast and phodi. Nevertheless, the fifth respondent has not taken any action. As such, a writ of mandamus directing the fifth respondent to initiate and complete durast and phodi proceedings for the subject land would be necessary in the interest of justice.

¶28

¶29

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶30

submits that all the durst and phodi proceedings will have to be presently initiated by the concerned Assistant Director of Land Records, and the petitioner has not submitted necessary application to the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records. If necessary application is submitted by the petitioner to the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mysore, the requisite proceedings will be initiated under proper intimation to the petitioner.

¶31

In the light of these submissions, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file necessary application with the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mysore, enclosing a certified copy of this order, requesting for durast and phodi of the subject land. The petitioner may submit such application within four

¶32

¶33

[4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner so submits the application, the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mysore shall take necessary action for commencement of durast and phodi of the subject land and within a period of eight [8] weeks inform the petitioner in writing about the status of such application.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

Sri Y N Shankare Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Y N Shankare Gowda 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 Venkatarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Narasamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Puttaswamy Nayaka Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Kaveri Retreats and Resorts Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Renukamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Rangegowda Vs the State of Karnataka