Allowed

Smt.Gowramma v. State

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2021WP/6446/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition directing the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, to consider petitioners' representations to change revenue entries for specific lands. The court relieved petitioners to submit a representation with a certified copy of the order, requiring the Tahsildar to consider it within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to consider representations for revenue entry changes within four months and liberty for petitioners to submit representation with certified copy of this order.

Smt.Gowramma Vs State — Landlord and Tenant | 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. 6446/2021 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶8

GOPAL REDDY S/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶9

SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶10

ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKABANAVARA VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 090.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(By SRI. CHOKKAREDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO 2^ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS/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.41/2 MEASURING 16 GUNTAS AND SY.NO. 59, MEASURING 27 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT VITTASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK AS PER THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED DATED 10.04.2013 IN DOCUMENT NO. 381/201314.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

The petitioners have filed this petition for a direction to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, to consider the different representations dated 15.10.2013, 16.11.2016 and 11.02.2020 [Annexures-A, B and C] filed by the petitioners for change of the revenue entries in his favour for the lands in Sy. No.41/2 [measuring 16 guntas] and Sy. No.59 [measuring 27 guntas] of Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [the subject lands].

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revenue entries for the subject lands stood mutated in favour of Sri. Govinda Reddy [under whom the petitioners and their family members claim the subject lands] in MR No.T3/2020-21 and MR No.T4/2020-21 for the subject lands. The family members, including the petitioners, have entered into the Partition Deed dated 17.10.2012, which is registered on 10.04.2013, dividing the different properties, and in

¶26

¶27

this Partition Deed the subject lands are allotted to the petitioners. As such, the petitioners have submitted different representations for mutation of revenue entries in their favour. The respondent No.2, who was obliged in terms of the provisions of Chapter XII of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to update the revenue records on receipt of information from the SubRegistrar's office about the registered transaction, has failed to act upon even on the petitioners' representations.

¶28

The material aspects such as the revenue entries for the subject lands stood in favour of Sri. Govinda Reddy and these lands are also subject matter of Partition Deed dated 17.10.2012 in which the petitioners are allotted the same are not disputed. Therefore, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the title to the subject lands, is of the considered opinion that the respondent No.2 must consider the

¶29

¶30

petitioners' representations as contemplated under Chapter-XII of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in a time bound manner. Therefore the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

[a] The writ petition is allowed

¶33

directing the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru [the respondent No.2] to consider the petitioners' representations for changing the revenue entries in their favour for the land in Sy. No.41/2 measuring 16 guntas and Sy. No.59 measuring 27 guntas of Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶34

[b] The petitioners shall be at liberty to submit a representation with the respondent No.2 enclosing a certified copy of this order. If the petitioners submit such representation, the respondent No.2 shall

¶35

¶36

consider the same strictly in accordance with law and inform the petitioners about the status of such consideration within four [4] months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

AN/-

Smt.Gowramma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Gowramma 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

Gopal Reddy Vs State