Allowed

Sri. Venkatarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2021WP/7343/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an endorsement by the Assistant Commissioner deemed without application of mind and directed a re-examination of the petitioner's revenue grievance with a speaking order within two months.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 17.12.2015 is set aside; the Assistant Commissioner is directed to re-examine the grievance and pass a speaking order within two months.

Sri. Venkatarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.7343/2016 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA, S/O. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKUPPA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. … PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,

¶11

VIDHANA VEEDHI,

¶12

BANGALAORE - 560 001

¶13

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

¶14

BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA,

¶15

K.G. ROAD,BANGALORE - 560 009

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR

¶17

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVANA,

¶18

K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.12.2015 IN R.A. (BN 28/2015-16) AT ANNEX-C WITH APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO THE ASST.,

¶22

¶23

COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE IN THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2015 IN R.A. (BN 28/2015-16) INCORPORATING THE TAHASILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE AT ANNEX-B AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

None appears for the petitioner.

¶27

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶28

the following reliefs:

¶29

(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other Writ, order or direction to quash or set aside the endorsement dated 17.12.2015 in R.A. (BN 28/2015-16) at Annexure 'C' with appropriate direction to the Asst., Commissioner, Bangalore North sub division, Bangalore to rectify the mistake in the operative portion of the order dated 28.09.2015 in R.A. (BN 28/2015-16) incorporating the Tahasildar, Bangalore north Taluk, Bangalore at Annexure-B.

¶30

(b) any such other Writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case.

¶31

Pursuant to the petitioner's application dated

¶32

15.12.2015, the Assistant Commissioner of Bengaluru North

¶33

Sub-Division, Bengaluru issued an endorsement stating that the earlier order to be rectified was passed by the then

¶34

¶35

Assistant Commissioner, therefore, necessary corrections could not be carried out. However, impugned endorsement dated 17.12.2015 is totally without application of mind. The Assistant Commissioner has not examined the grievance of the petitioner in his application dated 15.12.2015 to rectify Sy.No.116/2 to the extent of 0.04.08 guntas in Sondekuppe Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. If there are any errors in the revenue records, the same could be rectified with reference to other relevant revenue records.

¶36

Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case so as to quash the endorsement bearing No.RA(B.N.)28/2015-16 dated 17.12.2015. Hence, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Accordingly, the endorsement of the Assistant

¶39

Commissioner dated 17.12.2015 passed in proceedings No:RA(B.N.)28/2015-16 vide Annexure - C is set-aside. Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-division is hereby directed to re-examine the petitioner's grievance and rectify the reliefs sought by the petitioner with

¶40

¶41

reference to revenue records. In this regard, detailed speaking order shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Brn

Sri. Venkatarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkatarayappa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri a S Shankaranarayana Setty Vs State of Karnataka

B Nataraja Nairy Vs State of Karnataka

Sanaulla Shareeff Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Lakkanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Ariyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sheeja Gopakumar N G Vs State of Karnataka by