Allowed

Sri Muniraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2021WP/5363/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to update RTC and Mutation Registers by including their names in scheduled property records. The court directed the Tahasildar to consider specific representations within three months and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to respondent No.4 to consider representations submitted in Annexures E and F within three months.

Sri Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5363 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE VENKATANABOVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A KANIVENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BAVANAHALLI POST MALUR TALUK-563103 KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶7

SRI VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE VENKATANABOVI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A KANIVENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BAVANAHALLI POST MALUR TALUK-563 103 KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶8

... PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SHRI H.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 5^TH FLOOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI MULTI STORIED BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101.

¶13

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶15

4. THE TAHASILDAR MALUR TALUK

¶16

KOLAR DISTRICT-572 205.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SHRI A.R.SRINIVAS, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AN 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE NATURE OF DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CHANGE/EFFECT THE REVENUE SUCH AS RTC AND MUTATION REGISTER BY REVEALING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN COLUMN No.9 AND 12 OF COMPUTERIZED RTC AND MUTATION REGISTER IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURES-E, F IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

issue a writ of mandamus in the nature of direction or order directing the respondents to change/effect the revenue such as RTC and Mutation Register by revealing the name of the petitioners in column no.9 and 12 of computerized Rtc and Mutation Register in respect of schedule property which is produced and marked as Annexures-E and F in the interest of justice and equity;

¶25

¶26

to order that none considering the case of the petitioners for effecting/change of revenue records such as Mutation Register and RTC in the names of petitioners in respect of schedule property is illegal, arbitrary, invidious, discriminatory and capricious, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioners is that they have made various representations to respondent No.4 to effect necessary change in the revenue records in their names, which has not been done. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri H.B.Raju restricts his prayer to clause (1) above and does not press for prayer clause (2).

¶28

Shri A.R.Srinivas, Additional Government Advocate submits that given three months’ time, the representations made by the petitioners at Annexures-E and F, both dated 25^th October, 2017 would be considered by respondent No.4. His submission is placed on record.

¶29

Hence, a mandamus is issued to respondent No.4 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners at Annexures-E and F, both dated 25^th

¶30

¶31

October, 2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

¶32

order.

¶33

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

VGH

Sri Muniraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muniraju 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. S.K. Vivekanandda Vs Mrs. Noor Bushra Sayeed

Sri R Ramesh Vs Sri M P Nagaraj

Smt.Lakshmidevamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Thippa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Camil Mark Pais Vs Valerian Pais

G Subramani Vs S Sudhakar