Allowed

Pakakiravva W/O Shivputtrappa Sungar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2022WP/100727/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed Assistant Commissioner Gadag to remove the erroneously entered name of the government and restore the petitioners' grandfather's name in revenue records of land Sy.No.13/11, after approval from Deputy Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.4 to remove the name of the Government and restore the grandfather's name in revenue records within four weeks.

Pakakiravva W/O Shivputtrappa Sungar Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100727 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100727 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PAKIRAVVA W/O SHIVPUTTRAPPA SUNGAR AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJUR VILLAGE, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

¶9

DEVAVVA D/O DEVAPPA SUNGAR AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJUR VILLAGE, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

¶10

PARSAPPA S/O DEVAPPA SUNGAR AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJUR VILLAGE, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

¶11

YALLAPPA S/O DEVAPPA SUNGAR AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJUR VILLAGE, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI SADIQ N GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DIST. GADAG – 582101.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 100727 of 2022

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GADAG DIST. GADAG – 582101.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR, GAJENDRAGAD, DIST. GADAG-582101.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, RON DIST. GADAG – 582101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI V S KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5 TO ENTER THE NAMES OF PETITIONERS IN REVENUE RECORDS OF LAND BEARING SY NO.13/11 MEASURING 4 ACRES 2 GUNTAS SITUATED AT RAJUR VILLAGE, NAREGEL HOBLI, TQ.RON, DIST.GADAG VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The land bearing Sy.No.13/11 measuring 4.00 acres 0.4 guntas situated at Rajur village, Taluk Ron, Naregalla Hobli, District Gadag, was a Saranjam inam land. The subject land was granted in favour of the grandfather of petitioners vide order dated 17.3.1969 by the competent Authority. Thereafter, the name of the grandfather was mutated in the revenue records, however, from the period 2000-2001, the name of government was entered. The petitioners submitted an application with the 4^th respondent to remove the name of the

¶28

¶29

WP No. 100727 of 2022

¶30

government. The 4^th respondent sought approval from the 3^rd respondent for removing the name of the government and in turn the 3^rd respondent approved the proposal sent by the 4^th respondent. Though the 3^rd respondent has approved for removing the name of the government, the 4^th respondent has not taken any steps to remove the name of the government in the revenue records in respect of the subject property.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 3^rd respondent having granted approval to delete the name of the government, the 4^th respondent is under an obligation to delete the name of the government.

¶32

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the application submitted for removal of the name of the government in the revenue records will be considered in accordance with law.

¶33

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶34

The 4^th respondent has specifically stated that the subject land is a saranjam inam land, which was granted in

¶35

¶36

WP No. 100727 of 2022

¶37

favour of the grandfather of the petitioners vide order dated 17.3.1969. The name of the government is entered erroneously in the revenue records and sought for removal of the name of the government. The 3^rd respondent in turn has granted approval to remove the name of the government. Hence, the 4^th respondent is under an obligation to act upon the approval granted by the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

ii) The 4^th respondent is directed to remove the name of the Government in the revenue records in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.13/11 measuring 4.00 acres 0.4 guntas situated at Rajur village, Taluk Ron, Naregalla Hobli, District Gadag in the light of the communication dated 23.11.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent vide Annexure-F and restore the name of the grandfather of the petitioners. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 151

Pakakiravva W/O Shivputtrappa Sungar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pakakiravva W/O Shivputtrappa Sungar 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

Subhash S/O. Rangappa Kolli Vs the Deputy Director of

Suresh S/O Ishwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhima Kallappa Waghmode Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagangouda S/O Parvatgouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahabaleshwar S/O.Gopal Gaddemane, Vs the Branch Manager, Vikas Urban Co-Operative Bank

The State of Karnataka Vs the Land Tribunal