Dismissed

The Special Tahsildar v. Sri K Ramamurthy

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2023WA/462/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal by State Officials challenged a Single Judge's order directing the Tahsildar to continue the Respondent's name in revenue records. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding it devoid of merit, noting that the direction was subject to pending Section 67(2) proceedings and that digitalization does not warrant discontinuing a valid entry.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the benchmark direction to continue the Respondent's name in revenue records remained valid.

The Special Tahsildar Vs Sri K Ramamurthy — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:38264-DB WA No. 462 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶12

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, DASANAPURA-2 HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU 562 123.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA)

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. K RAMAMURTHY, S/O LATE K KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT No.538, 9^TH MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.2488/2022 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND B) CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WRIT PETITION NO.2488/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38264-DB WA No. 462 of 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This intra-court appeal by the State Officials seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 24.03.2022 whereby the Respondent’s W.P.No.2488/2022 having been allowed, “ the Tahsildar is directed to continue the name of petitioner in revenue records in respect of 1 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.25 situated at Bailakonenahalli Village, Dasanpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order” .

¶24

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶25

appearing for the Appellants argues that the proceedings under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 are still pending and therefore, direction of the kind for making entry in the name of the Respondent herein could not have been issued.

¶26

Having heard the learned Additional

¶27

Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38264-DB WA No. 462 of 2023

¶29

in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning on which the impugned order has been structured inasmuch as, the enquiry as to the grant of the land in question does not pertain to the domain of RTS proceedings under Section 136(2) of the 1964 Act and that they are independent. Admittedly, the name of Writ Petitioner came to entered pursuant to M R No. 1/91-92 and it continued till the computerization of the Revenue Records was undertaken. Merely because the records are being digitalized, the name earlier continuing cannot be discontinued.

¶30

It hardly needs to be stated that the direction of the learned Single Judge for continuing the name of Writ Petitioner in the Revenue Records is subject to outcome of Section 67(2) enquiry. Obviously, such an enquiry would include the discussion as to the “title facts” namely, whether there was grant or not; in that connection, all contentions need to be kept open consistent with reasoning of the impugned order.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:38264-DB WA No. 462 of 2023

¶33

In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid

¶34

of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.

¶35

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to

¶36

the Respondent by Speed Post.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

The Special Tahsildar v. Sri K Ramamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Tahsildar v. Sri K Ramamurthy

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 Nayazuddin Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh G S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt K S Arpitha Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Power Transmission Vs S. Kiran

Sri Basavashetty S K Vs Sri Dr Selvamani R

Sri.N. Venkatesh Vs Sri.B.v Suresh