Allowed

Smt. Munirathnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2021WP/5747/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged inaction by the Tahsildar regarding the petitioner's representation for mutation of revenue records in land inherited from her deceased mother. The High Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the representation within a time-bound manner.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent (Tahsildar) was directed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding mutation under Chapter XI of the KLR Act within four weeks.

Smt. Munirathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5747/2021 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAJU, D/O LATE YELLAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.50, 4^TH CROSS, THIPPASANDRA, THALAGAHTTAPURA POST, UTTRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 109. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(By SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI S. K., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE COMMISSIONER, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TLAUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,

¶12

BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(By SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA)

¶14

¶15

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 OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/07/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE E.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal. The petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, K.G.Road, Bengaluru (the second respondent) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's mother, Smt. Yellamma, wife of late Sri. Nagaiah was the absolute owner of the land measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.90/1 and the land

¶21

¶22

measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.150 of Dodderi Village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (the subject lands). The learned counsel relies upon the RTCs for these lands, which are enclosed as Annexures - A and B, in this regard. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's mother, Smt. Yellamma, died on 23.04.2018 leaving behind only the petitioner as her legal heir and the petitioner has succeeded to the subject lands on her demise. The petitioner has submitted her application dated 23.07.2018 (AnnexureE) for mutation of the revenue entries of the subject lands but no action has been taken.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that given the provisions of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the KLR Act') , the Tahsildar must take necessary action to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Chapter XI of

¶24

¶25

the KLR Act. The failure to consider the petitioner's representation is abdication of statutory duty. As such, this Court must issue a writ of mandamus to the second respondent - the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, K.G.Road, Bengaluru to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2019.

¶26

The learned Additional Government Advocate, in response, submits that the failure to consider the petitioner’s representation would not be deliberate and must be because of certain administrative constraints, but the second respondent would consider the petitioner's representation for an expedited decision. In the light of this submission, the petition stands disposed of by the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

a) The second respondent - the Tahasildar,

¶29

Bengaluru South Taluk, K.G.Road, Bengaluru is directed to consider the

¶30

¶31

petitioner's representation as contemplated under Chapter XI in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in a time bound manner. The petitioner, to facilitate the same, shall be at liberty to file a representation enclosing a certified copy of this Order within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such copy.

¶32

b) If the petitioner files such representation, the second respondent - the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, K.G.Road, Bengaluru shall consider the same in compliance with the directions of this Court without delay and inform the petitioner about the status of such consideration within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.

¶33

SD/JUDGE

¶34

Smt. Munirathnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Munirathnamma 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

Smt Thaslima Banu Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Gangappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy K M Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Tulasa Vs State of Karnataka

The Principal Secretary to Govt Vs M Abbayya @ Abbanna

G T Girish Vs the Deputy Commissioner