Allowed

Mrs. Muneera Begum v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2022WP/3708/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court directed the Committee for Missing Records to verify a past land grant. If verified, the Committee must enter the purchaser's name and complete survey work within three months. The previous Tahasildar was ordered to pay costs and the records are to be placed before the Deputy Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

1. Committee for Missing Records to consider the case and verify grant. 2. If grant verified, enter name and complete survey within 3 months. 3. Tahasildar to pay costs of Rs.25,000 to petitioner.

Mrs. Muneera Begum Vs Government of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3708 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.3708 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. MUNEERA BEGUM W/O MOHAMMED AKRAMULLA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.154, 4^TH C CROSS 100 FEET RING ROAD, ILLYASNAGAR J P NAGAR POST, BENGALURU -560 78

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. N SRIRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR

¶16

OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND REVENUE BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD (BELLARY ROAD) BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)

¶20

¶21

WP No. 3708 of 2022

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT THE SURVEY AND COMPLETE THE PODI WORK OF SY.NO.46/P140 OF KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶26

The petitioner has been running from pillar to post to get the phodi and durasth work done in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.46/P140 situated at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is the contention of the petitioner that the previous owner Sri Ahamad Sharieff was granted 1 acre of land way back on 20.10.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband purchased the land in question under a sale deed dated 03.10.2006. During the life time of petitioner’s husband Sri Mohammed Akram Ulla, he filed W.P.No.46211/2018 seeking directions to the revenue authorities to conduct the phodi and durasth work. This Court by order dated

¶27

¶28

WP No. 3708 of 2022 07.10.2020 disposed of W.P.No.46211/2018 recording the submission of the learned AGA that the Tahsildar, Bangalore South shall endeavour to complete the survey of the entire extent of land within four months from the date of the order and as and when the survey is completed, petitioner’s possession of 1 acre of land would be surveyed and boundaries fixed. It was also directed that the respondent authorities shall not be heard to say that the survey was put off merely because some of the owners to other extent of land in Sy.No.46 had challenged the order. Nevertheless, since the directions issued by this Court was not carried out, this writ petition is once again filed. 2. During the course of these proceedings by order dated 18.02.2022, this Court had directed the 2^nd respondent - Tahsildar to explain as to why the directions given by this Court was not complied and to indicate as to within what time the survey would be conducted. The respondent – Tahsildar is said to have filed an affidavit on 04.03.2022. Thereafter it was noticed that the Tahsildar

¶29

¶30

WP No. 3708 of 2022

¶31

has not in fact filed the affidavit and by inadvertently the learned Additional Government Advocate had submitted

¶32

that affidavit was filed. Nevertheless, on 10.03.2022, the affidavit of the Tahsildar was filed before this Court. This Court passed an interim order dated 10.03.2022 recording the submissions of the Tahsildar that the survey will be conducted and phodi and durasth work shall be carried out within two months from the date of order. On 23.05.2022, since it was submitted that phodi and durasth work was not carried out, the Tahsildar was directed to be present in person on 30.05.2022 to explain the reasons for non-compliance. On 30.05.2022, the Tahsildar and Assistant Director of Land Records were present before this Court and they sought two more months time to comply with the directions. This Court recorded the statements made by the Tahsildar and granted two more months time but levied costs of Rs.25,000/- on the Tahsildar for non compliance of the earlier orders. On 08.08.2022, the learned AGA submitted that the Tahsildar has been transferred and an in-charge arrangement was

¶33

¶34

WP No. 3708 of 2022

¶35

made. This Court therefore directed the person who was functioning as Tahsildar earlier and more particularly as on 30.05.2022 to be present before this Court.

¶36

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶37

submits that Tahsildar Sri Ramalakshmaiah, who was the Tahsildar as on 30.05.2022 is present before this Court and he has filed an affidavit on 16.08.2022. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Tahsildar has explained the reasons for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court. It is stated in the affidavit that though the Tahsildar forwarded the application made by the petitioner to the Assistant Director of Land Records, the Assistant Director of Land Records raised an objection that there was no official memorandum of grant available in the record and therefore the survey, phodi and durasth work could not be carried out. However, it is now stated in the affidavit that since the official memorandum is not available in the original records, as per the missing records circular the records will be placed before the Deputy Commissioner who heads the

¶38

¶39

WP No. 3708 of 2022

¶40

committee for missing records. The Committee is required to consider the application and complete the phodi work as

¶41

soon as the committee decides the matter in terms of the circulars dated 17.09.2000, 20.10.2008 and 20.06.2016 pertaining to phodi and durasth work and subsequent circular dated 17.09.2000 and circular dated 20.06.2016.

¶42

What is noticeable is that the respondent revenue authorities were aware of the fact that there are such circulars dated 17.09.2000 and 20.10.2008, 20.06.2016 passed by the revenue departments of the State Government and the respondent Thasildar has failed to bring these circulars to the notice of this Court. On the other hand, an excuse is now sought to be made that he has been transferred and in-charge arrangement is made.

¶43

Having regard to the findings of this Court in the matter of conduct of the respondent Tahsildar Sri Ramalakshmaiah, who is presently working as the Tahsildar, Bangalore Noth Taluk, this Court is of the considered opinion that the costs of Rs.25,000/- imposed by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2022 shall be

¶44

¶45

WP No. 3708 of 2022

¶46

complied by the Tahsildar. The costs shall be paid to the petitioner within one week from today. The payment of costs shall be entered in the service records of the concerned Tahsildar Sri Ramalakshmaiah.

¶47

Further in view of the statements made in the affidavit of the Tahsildar, and taking note of the fact that the application along with documents filed by the petitioner has been placed before the Deputy Commissioner who heads the committee for missing records, the committee for missing records is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass necessary orders. On verification, in terms of the circular issued by the State Government, if it is found that a grant was indeed made in favour of Sri Ahamed Sharieff, then the Committee shall direct the entry of the name of the purchasers or his successors in the land revenue records, conduct phodi and durasth work as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶48

¶49

WP No. 3708 of 2022

¶50

On the other hand if the committee, on

¶51

verification finds that no such grant was made in favour of

¶52

Sri Ahamed Sharieff an endorsement shall be issued to the petitioner accordingly, within the time prescribed

hereinabove.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

KLY

Mrs. Muneera Begum v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Muneera Begum v. Government 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

Sri M K Munikrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

V Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Veerabhadrachari Vs the State of Karnataka

Haneef Sab Vs the Tahsildar

Shri Gange Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Huchegowda Vs the Assistant Commissioner