Disposed

Sri.Hanumanthaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2022WP/6009/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected the petitioner's request for a computerized RTC extract due to suspected forgery of title documents. The Court ordered a verification enquiry within three months; if genuine, the petitioner's name will be entered in revenue records.

What did the court decide?

Directions to complete enquiry within three months; name to be entered in revenue records if documents found genuine; stay on alienation-related FIR.

Sri.Hanumanthaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6009 OF 2022(KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LENKAPPA, R/AT RAGHUNATHAPURA VILLAGE, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A G BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, M S BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMNAGARA,

¶14

RAMNAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MAGADI TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, MAGADI TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT – 562 120.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE COMPUTERIZED RTC

¶20

¶21

EXTRACT WITH RESPECT TO LAND BEARING SY.NO.106, MEASURING 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MACHOHALLI VILLAGE, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK IN PURSUANCE OF REPRESENTATIONS AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is as to non-

¶25

issuance of computerized RTC Extract in respect of the subject land. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all through, the name of his client’s wife was figuring in the Land Records and after her death, inheritance katha ought to have been done in favour of the petitioner who happens to be the widower of the deceased. This having not been done, learned counsel contends, his client is more than justified in knocking at the doors of Writ Court.

¶26

Learned AGA on request, appearing for the respondents opposes the writ petition vehemently contends that the very title documents namely the Grant Order and other contemporaneous documents themselves are spurious and therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. In

¶27

¶28

support of the same he produces a copy of Endorsement dated 29.08.2022 along with a Memo dated 18.10.2022.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the contention of learned AGA. The Endorsement dated 29.08.2022 at penultimate & ultimate paragraphs reads as under:

¶30

“CzÀgÀAvÉ C©ü¯ÉÃSÁ®AiÀÄ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ®¨sÀå«zÀÝ ªÀÄÆ® PÀqÀvÀ ¸ÀASÉå:J¯ï.J£ï.r.J¸ï.Dgï(3)1235/83-84gÀ ªÀÄÆ® PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è£À zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è£À zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À°è CA¢£À vÀºÀ²ÃPÁÝgï, ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ> CA¢£À «±ÉÃµÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯ÉègÀªÀgÀ ¸À» ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ £ÀPÀ®Ä JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹gÀÄªÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÉÆºÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À»UÁV §¼À¹gÀÄªÀ °ÃR¤UÀ¼À°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÀqÀvÀªÀÅ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆPÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1964gÀ PÁ®A 136(3) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 67(2)gÀr zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹ ¢.29.08.2022gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶31

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, w¥Àà¸ÀAzÀæ ºÉÆÃ§½ ªÀiÁZÉÆÃºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.106gÀ°è 0-20UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ J¯ï.J£ï.r.J¸ï.Dgï(3)1235/83-84gÀAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÁV ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÊdvÉ¬Ä®è¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄAdÆjAiÀÄAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄÄåmÉÃ±À£ï DVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄAdÆj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À £ÉÊdvÉ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆPÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1964 PÀ®A 136(3) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 67(2)gÀ Cr ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀéAiÀÄAªÉÃzÀåªÁV F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¢.26.8.2022gÀAvÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄAvÉ SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä gÀºÀ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯ÉÃPÀj¹zÉ ªÀivÀÄÛ ¤ÃªÀÅ F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« ¸À°è¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¹zÉ.”

¶32

¶33

The above having been said, the subject enquiry has to be accomplished after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders within an outer limit of three months. If the enquiry reveals the genuineness of the subject documents, the name of the petitioner shall be entered to/in the Revenue Records. All contentions are kept open.

¶34

It is open to the petitioner to protect his rights in respect of the subject property including the argued possession by approaching the Civil Court.

¶35

It hardly needs to be stated that the FIR in respect of subject alienation shall not be precipitated till after subject to outcome of the enquiry in question.

¶36

Now, no costs.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Bsv

Sri.Hanumanthaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Hanumanthaiah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gundu Poojary Vs the Land Tribunal Udupi

Sri.David Raj Samuel Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mohammed Muktar Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Basavarajappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

A Veeregowda Vs the Land Tribunal

Sri Riyaz Ulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka