Allowed

Raffiq Ahamed v. Assistant Director of Land Records

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2023WP/1123/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner urged this court to direct the respondent Tahsildar to conduct 'phodi' (land demarcation) and 'durasth' work regarding his land after higher authorities directed the same but failed to act. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to perform the work within three months.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the order to conduct phodi and durasth work within 3 months, complying with the Deputy Director's order.

Raffiq Ahamed Vs Assistant Director of Land Records — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1123 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1123 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAFFIQ AHAMED, S/O SYED MOHAMMED, AGED 70 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN, R/AT NO.66, 1^ST CROSS, NEAR INDIAN OIL PETROL BUNK, MUNIYAPPA GARDEN, NEAR KEB LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 094.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 598.

¶14

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, D.C.OFFICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. K.SHOBHA, HCGP FOR R1 – R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO CONDUCT THE PHODI OF THE PETITIONER

¶19

¶20

WP No. 1123 of 2023

¶21

LAND AS PER THE PARTITION DEED DATE 25.09.1995, VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶25

Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing,

¶26

with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

Heard Sri. Zameer Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.Shobha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner acquired land bearing Sy.No.464 measuring to an extent of 2.39 acres situated at Hiriyur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District under partition deed dated 25.09.1995. Learned counsel would submit that in pursuance to the partition deed, under MR.No.75/95-96, the petitioner’s name was mutated and he submits that the name of the petitioner is reflected in Column No.9 of RTC at Annexure-B. Learned counsel would submit that subsequently

¶29

¶30

WP No. 1123 of 2023

¶31

portion of the land is acquired by the National Highway Authority for National Highway. The petitioner is said to have submitted application for thathkal phodi in terms of AnnexuresC, D and F. When the Tahsildar failed to take action on the applications of the petitioner for phodi, the petitioner approached the Assistant Director of Land Records, Hiriyur Taluk, Hiriyur in proceedings No.CR.04/2020-21 and Assistant Director of Land Records by order dated 21.04.2021 rejected the request of the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner is said to have filed an appeal before the Technical Assistant and Deputy Director of Land Records, Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Chitradurga, who allowed the petitioner’s appeal and directed the Assistant Director of Land Records to effect phodi. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no phodi is taken place in spite of the order of Technical Assistant and Deputy Director of Land Records, Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Chitradurga.

¶32

On the other hand, learned HCGP would submit that action would be taken to consider the petitioner’s applications for phodi in the light of the order passed by the Technical Assistant and Deputy Director of Land Records, Deputy

¶33

¶34

WP No. 1123 of 2023

¶35

Commissioner’s Office, Chitradurga at Annexure-H dated 29.04.2022, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of writ petition papers, I am of the view that petitioner would be entitled for a writ of mandamus as prayed. Annexure-B – RTC reflects the name of the petitioner in Column No.9 in pursuance of MR.No.75/95-96. The petitioner submitted applications requesting for phodi under Annexures-C, D, E and F. When the Authorities failed to consider the same, the petitioner approached the Assistant Director of Land Records and Technical Assistant and Deputy Director of Land Records under Annexures-G and H. The Technical Assistant and Deputy Director of Land Records under Annexure-H directed the Assistant Director of Land Records to conduct phodi and durasth work of the petitioner’s land. Despite such a direction, the Tahsildar-respondent No.3 has failed to conduct phodi and durasth work of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.464 measuring to an extent of 2.39 acres situated at Hiriyur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. Hence the following:

¶37

¶38

WP No. 1123 of 2023

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to consider the applications of the petitioner and take action to conduct phodi and durasth work of land in Sy.No.464 measuring to an extent of 2.39 acres situated at Hiriyur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, in accordance with law and in the light of the order of respondent No.2 at Annexure-H dated 29.04.2022, excluding the land acquired by National Highway Authorities, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

ii. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

SMJ

Raffiq Ahamed v. Assistant Director of Land Records

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raffiq Ahamed v. Assistant Director of Land Records

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. Cicilia D Souza Vs Mrs. Helan D Souza

Abbas S/O Late Hydros Beary Vs the State of Karnataka

Neelappa Gowda. S Vs the Principal Secretary

Y K Nagarathna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nagarathnamma, Vs the Thahasildar

Smt. Narasamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner