Disposed

Smt C Rukumini v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2022WP/4653/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No.4653/2022, the Karnataka High Court addressed a delay in resolving a discrepancy between Akarband and R.T.C. records. The petitioner sought Thathkal Phodi and Durasthi for her land. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner and other respondents to resolve the discrepancy within three months to enable further proceedings, before disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Addl. and Respondents 2 and 3 to resolve the discrepancy between Akarband and R.T.C. within three months.

Smt C Rukumini Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

W.P.No.4653/2022 (KLR - RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. C.RUKUMINI, D/O CHANNAPPA @ SONNE PALLEPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.213, 54^TH CROSS, 4^TH DIVISION, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, REVENUE SURVEY OFFICE, 1^ST CROSS, K R CIRCLE, NEAR CENTURY CLUB, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.), YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA - 560 064.

¶14

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.), YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 TO CARRY OUT/CONDUCT THE THATHAKAL PHODI, DURAST WORK AND ASSIGN THE BOUNDARIES IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS LAND IN SY.NO.12/1 (SY.NO.12), MEASURING 3-00 ACRES (1,30,680 SQUARE FEET) SITUATED AT DODDABETTAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU AS PER ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE - M.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

An endorsement issued by the Additional Director of Land Records stating that there is a discrepancy in the extent in the Akarband and the R.T.C., and until the discrepancy is set right, the request of the petitioner for Thathkal Phodi and Durasthi would not be taken up.

¶22

¶23

The contention of the petitioner is that the request for Phodi and Durasthi cannot be kept pending indefinitely on the basis of some discrepancy in the extent in the Akarband and R.T.C. It is stated that though more than six months have elapsed, the issue is yet to be resolved.

¶24

In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk and also respondent Nos.2 and 3 to ensure that the discrepancy in relation to the Akarband and R.T.C., are resolved, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and further proceedings be taken up for Phodi and Durasthi.

¶25

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶26

SD/JUDGE

¶27

Smt C Rukumini v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt C Rukumini v. the Commissioner

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. Pv Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri T L Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Veena N Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N a Prasanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Susheela Vs State of Karnataka

Padmanabha Naik Vs the Land Tribunal