Allowed

Gopal Reddy v. State

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2021WP/6431/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-member bench allowed the writ petition and directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representations to change revenue entries in a time-bound manner. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a representation with a certified copy of the order, mandating consideration within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation with certified copy; Respondent No. 2 to consider same strictly in law and inform status within four months.

Gopal Reddy Vs State — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6431/2021 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

GOPAL REDDY S/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKABANAVARA VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 090.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. CHOKKAREDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

2. TAHASILDAR

¶13

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

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

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS/

¶17

¶18

ANNEXURE-A, B AND C DATED 15.10.2013, 16.11.2016 AND 11.02.2020 RESPECTIVELY FOR EFFECTING THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 87, MEASURING 1 ACRE 08 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT VITTASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK AS PER THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED DATED 10.04.2013 IN DOCUMENT NO.381/2013-14.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal.

¶22

The petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, to consider the petitioner’s different representations dated 15.10.2013, 16.11.2016 and 11.02.2020 [Annexures-A, B and C] filed by the petitioner for change of revenue entries in his favour for the land in Sy. No.87, measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, of

¶23

¶24

Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [the subject land].

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

submits that the revenue entries for the subject land stood mutated in favour of the petitioner's father, Sri. Govinda Reddy in MR No.06/2001-02. The family members including, the petitioner and his brother have entered into Partition Deed dated 17.10.2012 which is registered on 10.04.2013 dividing the different properties and in this Partition Deed, the subject land is allotted to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner has submitted different representations for mutation of revenue entries in his favour. The respondent No.2, who was obliged in terms of the provisions of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to update the revenue records on receipt of information from the Sub-Registrar's office about the registered transaction,

¶27

¶28

has failed to act upon even the petitioner's

¶29

representations.

¶30

The material aspects such as the revenue

¶31

entries for the subject land stood in favour of the petitioner's father and this land is also subject matter of Partition Deed dated 17.10.2012 in which the petitioner is allotted the subject land are not disputed. This Court, without expressing any opinion on title to the subject property, is of the considered opinion that the respondent No.2 must consider the petitioner's representations as contemplated under Chapter-XII of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in a time bound manner. Therefore the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

[a] The writ petition is allowed

¶34

directing the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru [the respondent No.2] to

¶35

consider the petitioner's representations for

¶36

¶37

changing the revenue entries in his favour for the land in Sy. No.87 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas of Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶38

[b] The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a representation with the respondent No.2 enclosing a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner submits such representation, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and inform the petitioner about the status of such consideration within four [4] months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

AN/-

Gopal Reddy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Reddy v. State

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. Krishna Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Sekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mookambika Enterprises Vs M/S Gururaj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Rajashekar B Y Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Gowramma Vs State