Dismissed

Smt Munimaramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Aug 2022WP/16878/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged a Tahasildar's order declining mutation of land after her husband's death. The Court set aside orders directing the Assistant Commissioner to personally verify original records with the petitioner within three months.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement by Tahasildar dated 11.02.2022 and order of Assistant Commissioner set aside; direction to verify records within 3 months.

Smt Munimaramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.16878/2022 (KLR RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT MUNIMARAMMA W/O.LATE DODDADURGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, HEJJALA GRAMA, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA - 562109. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶12

THE TAHASILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA. …RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TAHASILDAR, DTD 11.02.2022 IN

¶15

-2-

¶16

NO.LND/CR/130/2020-21 VIDE ANENXURE-C1.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned Endorsement dated 11.02.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara, declining to enter the name of the petitioner in the land revenue records in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.11 of Hejjala Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk.

¶22

It is the contention of the petitioner that on an application made by Sri. Doddadurgaiah - husband of the petitioner, seeking grant of land, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 08.08.1979 bearing No.LND (2) SR.257/1979-80 granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.11 and on payment of upset price of Rs.250/-, the land was granted in

¶23

-3-

¶24

favour of Sri. Doddadurgaiah. It is contended that the name of

¶25

Sri. Doddadurgaiah was entered in the land revenue records. However, after the demise of Sri. Doddadurgaiah, when the petitioner sought for mutation entry of her name in the land revenue records by way of inheritance, the Tahsildar declined to enter her name and issued an Endorsement dated 08.09.2017. The ground on which the Tahsildar declined to enter the name of the petitioner was that there were no such grant order as claimed by the petitioner found in the original Grant Register. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner in No.LND/SR/106/2017-18. The Assistant Commissioner appears to have summoned the original Grant Records and thereafter, remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar to once again verify the genuinity of the claim made by the petitioner by perusing the original records and thereafter, pass necessary orders.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there was a specific direction by the Assistant Commissioner to verify the original Grant Register, Saguvali

¶27

-4-

¶28

Chit, Issue Register, Mutation Entries and after making a spot inspection, the Tahsildar was required to pass necessary orders, nevertheless, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the Tahsildar.

¶29

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the Assistant Commissioner had summoned the original records, then he should have himself verified the records instead of remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar. Nevertheless, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be re-considered by the Assistant Commissioner himself on securing the original records, including the original Grant Register, Saguvali Chit, Issue Register, Mutation Entries and all other contemporaneous records, verify the same in the presence of the petitioner so that the petitioner also will have an opportunity to look into the original records. On satisfaction that such an order was

¶30

-5-

¶31

indeed passed by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of Sri. Doddadurgaiah, the Assistant Commissioner may proceed to pass necessary orders.

¶32

The order of the Assistant Commissioner in

¶33

No.LND/SR/106/2017-18 as well as the Endorsement dated 11.02.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the Assistant Commissioner as noticed herein above.

¶34

The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Smt Munimaramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Munimaramma 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.K.P.Nityananda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bylappa @ Thammaiah Vs the Head Quarters Assistant to Office

N Lakshminarayana Vs the Land Tribunal

Poornima Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nagarathna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Devendra Vs Tahsildar and Secretary