The High Court of Karnataka directed the Tahsildar to decide on a show cause notice within eight weeks and the Assistant Director of Land Records to implement a past appellate order mandating resurvey of disputed land, rejecting indefinite delays based on 'Pada' status.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7222/2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI RANGANATH K.R., S/O BANDI RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT BRAHMASANDRA VILLAGE, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 128.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANU SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
2
TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 46H OF KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT DATED 06/02/2020 AND REPRESENTATION DATED 20.11.2020 GIVEN BY THE PETITIOENR VIDE ANNEXURE-D & H AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal.
3
Honnenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District (subject land) has filed this petition for a direction to the Assistant Director of Land Records, Tumakuru Taluk [the third respondent] to consider his representations dated 06.02.2020 and 20.11.2020. The petitioner has submitted these representations for conducting re-survey and phodi of the entire land in Survey No.11 of Honnenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District.
4
land bearing Survey No.11 of Honnenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk, Tumkuru District. This land in Survey No.11 is surveyed and sub-divided as Survey Nos. 11/1 and 11/2 without notice to the petitioner or his family members. As such, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in Appeal No.42/2011-12 before the Technical Assistant, Office of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Director of Land Records, Tumakuru District. This appeal is disposed of by the order dated 22.09.2016 cancelling the sub-division of land in Survey No.11 of Honnenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District as Survey Nos.11/1 and 11/2, with a direction to the concerned to re-survey the land in Survey No.11 and take appropriate decision after issuing notice to all the khathedars.
5
Appeal No.42/2011-12, the petitioner has filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.404/2019 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru against his aunts, Smt. Bhagyamma and Smt. Prameela. This suit has culminated in a compromise decree under which the petitioner is entitled for an extent of 3 acres in Survey No.11 of Honnenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District (the subject land).
6
office. The petitioner has applied under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, but the documents are not furnished. Therefore, there must be a direction by this Court to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and to conduct re-survey of the Survey No.11 of Honnenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District in compliance with the earlier order dated 22.09.2016 in Appeal No.42/2011-12.
Government Advocate, relying upon the contents of the show cause notice dated 13.10.2020 issued to the petitioner, submits that it has been ascertained by the fourth respondent that this land in Survey No.11 of Honnenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District has been declared as 'Pada' way back in 1960s and despite such declaration, there are
7
registered transactions without an application for restoration. Therefore, the show cause notice is issued calling for records. The Tahasildar, Tumakuru Taluk could be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass suitable orders on whether there is declaration of the land in Sy.No.11 of Honnenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk, Tumkuru District as 'pada' for non-payment of land revenue.
8
sustained because there is mismatch in the entries as regards the extent and corresponding holding by the different persons.
9
must also give effect of the orders of the Technical Assistant of the Office of Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Director of Land Records in Appeal No. 42/2011-12, and the implementation of this order cannot be put of indefinitely on the ground that the land in Survey No.11 of Honnenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk, Tumkuru District is declared as 'Pada' land. In the above circumstances, the petition is disposed of by the following:
ORDER
[a] The writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent - the jurisdictional Tahsildar to decide on the show cause notice dated 13.10.2020 in the light of the observations made herein within an outer limit of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
10
order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file such representation in this regard enclosing a certified copy of this order.
[b] The jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records, Tumakuru [respondent No.3] shall in the light of the decision of the Tahsildar, Tumakuru Taluk [respondent No.4] take further steps to implement the order dated 22.09.2016 in Appeal No. 42/2011-12.
SD/JUDGE
mbb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tahsildar can be directed to decide on the show cause notice within a specific timeframe considering the earlier appellate order.
Whether the Assistant Director of Land Records must implement the order dated 22.09.2016 regarding re-survey of the subject land.
Whether the declaration of land as 'Pada' can indefinitely delay the implementation of the appellate order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
MARU DITTY PRAVIN DITTY vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIAL RECTIFICATION & HORTICULTUREReferred
(1) MARU DITTY PRAVIN DITTY vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIAL RECTIFICATION & HORTICULTURE
V. RAMAIAH vs THE CIRCULAR OF ERECTION FOR RELAZONReferred
(2) V. RAMAIAH vs THE CIRCULAR OF ERECTION FOR RELAZON
N. BALASUBRAMANIAN vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADUReferred
(3) N. BALASUBRAMANIAN vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI RANGANATH K.R.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, TUMKURU DISTRICT
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
TAHASILDAR, TUMKURU TALUK
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
