Allowed

Smt. Nagamma v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2022WP/7441/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka quashed a Tahsildar's endorsement refusing to conduct 'phodi' and 'durasth' work on land possessed by the petitioner. Despite an alleged 1975 cancellation of the original grant, the Court held the cancellation order a nullity due to lack of production and direct the revenue authorities to complete the survey work within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement was quashed, and the Tahsildar was directed to conduct phodi and durasth work within two months.

Smt. Nagamma Vs the Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 7441 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 7441 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE G RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/A TAVAREKERE VILLAGE GOWDAGERE HOBL, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572139

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. VANITA J.D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 01

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR SIRA TALUK SIRA - 572137

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 17.03.2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP No. 7441 of 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶24

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits

¶25

that he has received a copy of the writ petition.

¶26

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to quash the endorsement dated 17.03.2022 and to direct the second respondent-Tahsidlar, Sira Taluk to conduct the phodi and durasth work in respect of 10 acres of land in Sy.No.16 of Cheelanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk.

¶27

The petitioner was earlier before this Court in W.P.No.1332/2022 seeking similar directions. This Court while noticing the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that all applications seeking phodi and durasth work are to be filed Online, permitted the petitioner to file an Online application and the Tahsildar was also directed to consider such application, if filed Online.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 7441 of 2022

¶30

The respondent-Tahsildar thereafter issued the impugned endorsement dated 17.03.2022 stating that no records in respect of the grant said to have been made in favour of Sri.Puttanaika S/o Sannahobanaika was found and therefore, although the name of the petitioner is entered in the land revenue records consequent to registered sale deed, the Tahsildar declined to conduct the phodi and durasth work.

¶31

During the course of these proceedings, the respondent-Tahsildar was directed to be present before this Court. Today, the Tahsildar is present before this Court along with the original Grant Register. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits while referring to the entries made in the Grant Register that although it is true that the land in question was granted in favour of Sri.

¶32

Puttanaika S/o Sannahobanaika, proceedings were later on initiated before the Assistant Commissioner on 22.04.1975

¶33

for cancellation of the grant. While placing the original Grant Register before this Court, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since the grant made

¶34

¶35

WP No. 7441 of 2022

¶36

in favour of the original grantee has been cancelled, the phodi and durasth work, as required by the petitioner, could not be carried out.

¶37

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers including the original Grant Register, this Court finds that this is another classic case of the manner in which the land revenue records are maintained in the State. This Court finds that the respondent-Tahsildar has given the impugned endorsement dated 17.03.2022 stating that no original records are found in respect of the grant said to have been made in favour of Sri.Puttanaika. However, today, it is sought to be contended at the hands of the respondentTahsildar that although, grant was said to have been made in favour of Sri.Puttanaika, somewhere in the year 197576, the grant made in favour of Sri.Puttanaika was cancelled. It is therefore contended by the respondentTahsildar that the phodi and durasth work cannot be conducted.

¶38

¶39

WP No. 7441 of 2022

¶40

The Tahsildar is also unable to place a copy of the

¶41

order of cancellation before this Court. It is also not

¶42

evident as to whether the order of cancellation was brought to the notice of Sri.Puttanaika or his legal heirs. What is furthermore glaring is that the name of Sri.Puttanaika continued in the land revenue records, even after the so called cancellation. The petitioner’s husband, Sri.G.Rangaiah purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed dated 06.08.1988. Consequent to Sri.G.Rangaiah acquiring the land under a registered instrument, his name was entered in the land revenue records in M.R.No.1/1988-89. Further, after the demise of Sri.G.Rangaiah, the name of the petitioner, being the wife of Sri.G.Rangaiah was also entered in the land revenue

¶43

records in M.R.No.H7/2016-17. That being the position, if the revenue authorities are now permitted to contend that the order of cancellation said to have been made in the year 1975-76, that too, when no orders of cancellation are available with the authorities, and if they are permitted to decline conducting of phodi and durasth work, the

¶44

¶45

WP No. 7441 of 2022

¶46

petitioner would be put to great difficulty and untold misery.

¶47

The inaction on the part of the revenue authorities to maintain the land revenue records in accordance with law and consequences that would befall the petitioner having regard to the fact that the order of cancellation not having been noticed in the land revenue records and permitting the name of the previous vendor to continue in the land revenue records and on the basis of which Sri.G.Rangaiah purchased the land in question in the year 1988 and his name having been entered in the land revenue records and at this juncture, if the petitioner is prevented from having lands phodied and boundaries marked in terms of the registered instrument, it would be in total denigration of the provisions of law contained in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. This Court would also not hesitate to hold that the order of cancellation of grant having not seen the light of the day, is a nullity and cannot be given effect to.

¶48

¶49

WP No. 7441 of 2022

¶50

In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent-Tahsildar or the State Government cannot be allowed to decline consideration of the request made by the petitioner for phodi and durasth work in respect of the land in question.

¶51

If such an action, on the other hand is permitted, then the petitioner and many such persons would suffer injustice at the hands of this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court would proceed to pass the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 17.03.2022 given by the respondentTahsildar to the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶54

(iii) The respondent-Tahsildar is hereby specifically directed to conduct the phodi and durasth work in respect of the land in question having regard to the boundaries

¶55

¶56

WP No. 7441 of 2022

¶57

shown in the registered sale deed dated

¶58

06.08.1988.

¶59

(iv) The respondent-Tahsildar is also permitted to take the support of the original mutation extract and survey settlement records, where the original survey records would be available to show the durasth that was conducted after the grant was made in favour of Sri.Puttanaika.

¶60

(v) The phodi and durasth work shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from today.

¶61

Ordered accordingly.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Smt. Nagamma v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nagamma v. the Secretary

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

Mr M a Colasco Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. v. Shantharam Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Abdul Quadar Mukka Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.v.Basavaraj Wodiyar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gangaraju Vs the State of Karnataka