Allowed

Smt Ramakka v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022WP/6205/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tahasildar to consider representation applications for mutation entries in favour of Petitioners over four acres of land, relying on a final Civil Court decree confirming their title against the State and BDA.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to consider representation applications for mutation entries within four months.

Smt Ramakka Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6205 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT RAMAKKA, W/O LATE APPAJI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, OCC.NILL.

¶9

2 . A SRINIVASA, S/O LATE APPAJI AREDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶10

3 . SRI.A. SOMASHEKARA, S/O LATE APPAJI AREDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,

¶11

ALL ABOVE ARE RESIDING AT NO.884, 3^RD CROSS, 11^TH MAIN, HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.L.S.CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., MS BUILDING ANNEXE, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-I, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION,

¶17

¶18

KANDAY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶19

3. THE TAHASILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560036.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS AND IN PARTICULAR R-3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNX-L,M,N, P AND Q DATED 5.6.2009, 3.11.2011, 4.11.2011, 25.01.2016 AND 30.10.2017 THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF 4 ACRES OF LAND IN SY.NO.211 THAT SITUATES AT BANASAVADI VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the official respondents to consider their applications, copies whereof avail at Annexures-L, M, N, P & Q dated 5.6.2009, 3.11.2011, 4.11.2011, 25.01.2016 & 30.11.2017 respectively whereby they have sought for making of entries in their favour in respect of the subject land. In support of their case, learned counsel draws attention of the court to the Civil Court judgment & decree dated 29.11.2008 in O.S.No.4779/1995

¶26

¶27

wherein title to this land has been declared against the State and the BDA. He heavily banks upon the Spl. Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 30.8.2016, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A.

¶28

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶29

Respondents opposes the petition by filing Statement of Objection dated 10.3.2021 contending that the land in question is a government land and therefore, entries cannot

¶30

be made in favour of private persons in the revenue records. When asked whether any challenge was laid to the Civil Court decree, he submits that the same has attained finality, there being no challenge.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶32

and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the title to the land has been declared by the Civil Court in the suit of the Petitioners in which, the government and the BDA happened to be the defendants. The above apart, a decree of the court needs to be acted upon says the proviso

¶33

¶34

to section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for the purpose of making entries in the revenue records.

¶35

In view of the above, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues directing the 3^rd Respondent herein to consider Petitioners’ subject representation in the light of Special Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 30.08.2016 and judgment & decrees in O.S.No.1705/2007 & O.S.No.4779/1995 within an outer limit of four months, all contentions are kept open.

¶36

It is open to the answering Respondents to solicit any information or documents from the side of the Petitioners subject to the rider that in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked.

¶37

Costs made easy.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

cbc

Smt Ramakka v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ramakka 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Aswathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkateshappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Siddaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Eshwarappa G Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri N Nagaraju Vs the Regional Joint Director