Disposed

Chandra Reddy v. State

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2021WP/6514/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought mandamus against the Tahasildar to update revenue entries based on a registered partition deed. Relying on Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the court directed the petitioner to file a representation and ordered the Tahasildar to act within four months of receipt.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation within four weeks; second respondent directed to give effect to partition deed and inform action taken within four months of receipt.

Chandra Reddy Vs State — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6514/2021 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

CHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT VITTASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 068.

¶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

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

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA)

¶15

¶16

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 SOURTH TALUK AS PER THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED DATED 10.04.2013 IN DOCUMENT NO. 381/201314.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition for issuance

¶20

of a writ of mandamus to the second respondent, the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, to enter the revenue entries for the lands in survey No. 41/2

¶21

¶22

(measuring 16 guntas) and survey No. 59 (measuring 27 Guntas) of Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk pursuant to the registered Partition Deed dated 17.10.2012.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the other members of the family, including Sri Thimma Reddy, Sri. Gopala Reddy and Sri. Srinivasa Reddy, in whose names the RTC for the lands in survey No. 41/2 and 59 of Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk are mutated, have entered into this registered partition deed dated 17.10.2012, and in terms of this Partition Deed, and the petitioner is allotted both these parcels of land. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for

¶24

change in revenue entries accordingly.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the provisions of section 128 of the Karnataka

¶26

¶27

Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 to emphasize that the petitioner is exempted from making an application/filing a report with the second respondent for change in the revenue entries consequent to the registered Partition Deed and emphasizes that the second respondent is obliged to act upon such deed on receipt of intimation of the registration of the deed by the concerned Sub Registrar.

¶28

The second respondent, given the provisions of section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Rule 64 of the of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, is indeed obliged to act upon the registered deed to enter revenue entries according to the deed upon receipt of intimation in that regard from the concerned Registrar. It is seen that the registration of the partition deed dated 17.10.2012 is completed on

¶29

¶30

10.04.2013 and is registered in No. BMH-1-003812013-2014 and the persons in whose name the RTCs for the lands in survey No. 41/2 and 59 of Varadanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura stand mutated, are parties to the transaction. Therefore it would be incumbent on the second respondent to give effect to the transaction under this partition deed without any further delay.

¶31

As such, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation with the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, enclosing a copy of such order as also a copy of the partition deed dated 17.10.2012. The second respondent, upon receipt of such representation from the petitioner, take necessary measures to give effect to the transaction under the partition deed dated 17.10.2012 in

¶32

¶33

accordance with law. The second respondent, within a period of four [4] months from the date of receipt of such representation, inform the petitioner about the

¶34

action taken.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

Chandra Reddy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra 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. Biju Thomas Vs Sri. Sebastian Moolechalil Joseph

Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatachala Reddy Vs the Tahsildar

Ravisha Vs the Secretary

M. Munivenkatashamappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Chikkegowda Vs State of Karnataka