Allowed

Smt Chinnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2021WP/8612/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for direction to respondents to dispose of a representation for inclusion of petitioner's name in revenue records. The court allowed the petition in part, directing the Thasildar to give effect to the Assistant Commissioner's order.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed in part; the Thasildar is directed to take suitable action to give effect to the Assistant Commissioner's order and inform the petitioner within six weeks.

Smt Chinnamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8612/2021 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O L. SAMPANGI D/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 562 149.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY. S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIV BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE THASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK YELAHANKA

¶14

BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO DISPOSE OFF THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 18.09.2020 BY REVENUE ENTRY IN COLUMN NO.9 & 12 (2) OF THE RTC FROM THE YEARS 2002-2003 ONWARDS.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard with their consent for final disposal. The petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 18.09.2020 submitted by him for inclusion of his name in Column Nos.9 and 12[2] for the land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No.177 of Bagaluru Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North [Additional] Taluk - the subject property - from the years 2002-2003 onwards.

¶21

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the petition averments and annexures, submits that the petitioner, who is granted the subject property, was constrained to file appeal under Section 136[2] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for restoration of the revenue entries for the subject property in the RTC for the years subsequent to 2001-02 as the petitioner's name was left out at the time of computerization. The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-division, Bengaluru has disposed of such appeal in No.RA [BNA] 299/2017-18 directing the respondent No.3 to enter the petitioner's name in Column Nos.9 and 12[2] for the subject property from the years 2002-2003 onwards. After this order, the petitioner has submitted a representation as per Annexure-A which has not been considered.

¶23

The operative portion of the order in the appeal in No.RA [BNA] 299/2017-18 reads as follows:

¶24

¶25

"The I.A. for condonation of delay in preferring the above Appeal, is hereby allowed and the delay is condoned. Further, the above appeal is also hereby allowed and consequently, the Tahasildar, Bangalore North [Addl] Taluk, Yelahanka, Bangalore, is hereby directed to enter the name of the Appellant in Column Nos.9 & 12[2] of the RTC records from the years 2002-2003 onwards in respect of the property measuring 2.00 Acres in Sy. No.177 situate at Bagalur village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North [Addl] Taluk, in accordance with law."

¶26

The order in appeal in No.RA [BNA] 299/2017-18 is not challenged. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North [Additional] Taluk, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, the respondent No.3 must give effect to the orders of the Assistant Commissioner in No. RA [BNA] 299/2017-18. If the respondent No.3 is of the view that there is any difficulty in implementing the order, must initiate necessary measures to call in

¶27

¶28

question the orders of the Assistant Commissioner in the aforesaid appeal. But, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the order without any further action.

¶29

Therefore the petition is allowed in part directing the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North [Additional] Taluk, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, the respondent No.3, to take suitable action and inform the petitioner about the same within a period of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to file certified copy of this order with the respondent No.3.

¶30

SD/JUDGE

¶31

AN/-

Smt Chinnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chinnamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renukamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Rangegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandraiah Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Pg Setty Construction Technology Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

M C Basavaraju Vs the Secretary

Domappa Vs the Assistnat Commissioner