Dismissed

Nataraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2022WP/4473/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1930 Phodi and Durasth settlement. The Court held that title disputes require civil litigation, not writ intervention, and settled revenue records cannot be disturbed after long delays, especially when a separate suit is pending.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with directions to file a memorial within four weeks.

Nataraju Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4473 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 4473 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NATARAJU

¶10

S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

R/AT AGALAGUNTE VILLAGE BHUGUDANAHALLI POST

¶13

BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572107

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SMT. NALINA.K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATA REDDY S K, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU - 572101

¶19

THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS

¶20

¶21

WP No. 4473 of 2022

¶22

TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU - 572101

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572101

¶24

SHIVA KUMAR S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶25

SIDDALINGAMMA W/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶26

SHVIANNA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶27

DAKSHAYANAMMA W/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶28

SIDDANANJAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶29

BASAVARAJU S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶30

SHANTHAMMA W/O BASAVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶31

RESPONDENTS 5 TO 11 ARE RESIDENTS OF AGALAGUNTE VILLAE BHUGUDANAHALLI POST BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572107

¶32

RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA S. HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 NOTICE TO R5 TO R11 D/W V/O DT. 02/08/2022)

¶34

¶35

WP No. 4473 of 2022

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 18.12.2014 PASSED BY THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNX-B AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED THE PETITIONER AND CANCEL / SET ASIDE THE HISSA PHODS IN SY.NO.13 OF AGALAGUNT VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND ORDER TO CONDUCT FRESH SURVEY AND HUDBUST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶40

Office objections are overruled. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents No.1 to 4. Notice for other respondents is not necessary for the

¶41

following reasons;

¶42

The petitioner sought to question a phodi-durasth done and settled in the year 1930 by moving the third respondent-Technical Assistant/Deputy Director of Land Records, Tumakur in proceedings bearing Appeal No.162/2011-12. When the said appeal was dismissed, the

¶43

petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 56 of the

¶44

¶45

WP No. 4473 of 2022

¶46

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy

¶47

Commissioner also dismissed the revision petition.

¶48

On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

¶49

learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the respondentauthorities have rightly considered the claim of the petitioner questioning a phodi and durasth settlement done in the year 1930. The respondent-authorities have

¶50

held that the dispute is in the nature of a civil litigation between the parties touching upon the title and therefore the petitioner is required to approach the competent civil court to redress his grievance. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order. A settled position and entries

¶51

made in the land revenue record/survey records cannot be disturbed at the instance of a party who seeks to question

¶52

the same after unreasonably long time. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, the earlier phodi and durasth was carried out in the year 1930. Moreover, it is also found that the petitioner has already filed a suit in

¶53

¶54

WP No. 4473 of 2022

¶55

O.S.No.199/2021 seeking declaration at the hands of the

¶56

civil court. Therefore, as and when the petitioner succeeds in the suit, he would be entitled to make a legitimate claim

¶57

at the hands of the respondents.

¶58

Consequently, this Court having found no merit in

¶59

the writ petition, proceeds to dismiss the writ petition.

¶60

Ordered accordingly.

¶61

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶62

permitted to file Memo of Appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Nataraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nataraju v. 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

Sri. Ningegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Patalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Munilakshmamma Vs the Secretary

Smt Muniyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N M Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka