Allowed

R. Shridhar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2023WP/18860/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to restore his name in computerized RTC regarding sold land. Court held no legal impediment existed for revenue authorities to consider pending representations and directed respondents to update records within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent Nos 2 to 4 to enter the petitioner's name in the computerized RTC for Sy.No.28/39 within eight weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.

R. Shridhar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:32175 WP No.18860 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.18860 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

R. SHRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.2821, PAMPAPATHI ROAD 1ST MAIN, JAYANAGAR MYSORE-570014.

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

(BY SRI. RAKSHIT R. SHRESTY, ADV., FOR

¶9

SRI. PRAKASH B.N. ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001.

¶14

THE ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSORE-570001.

¶15

TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK MYSORE-5570001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.SESHU V. HCGP)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:32175 WP No.18860 of 2023

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO R4 CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND TAHSILDAR DTD 28.06.2023, 10.07.2023, 28.06.2023 ANNEXURE-A B C) OF THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INCORPORATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN COMPUTERIZED RTC BY RESTORING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.06.2023, 10.07.2023 and 28.06.2023 as at Annexures-A to C to the writ petition and further direction to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the computerized RTC by restoring his name in respect of the subject land.

¶24

2. Sri.Rakshit R.Shresty, learned counsel

¶25

appearing on behalf of Sri.Prakash B.N., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32175 WP No.18860 of 2023

¶27

purchased the land in Sy.No.28/39 measuring 1 acre in Lalitadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru vide registered sale deed dated 22.12.2004 and pursuant to the said sale deed, the revenue records were mutated the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner has initiated suo moto proceedings under provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ' the PTCL Act '). The respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 04.08.2014 has ordered to restore the land in favour of the State Government holding that there is a violation of the provisions of the Act. The said order came to be assailed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 09.05.2017 has dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has filed

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:32175 WP No.18860 of 2023

¶29

the writ petition in W.P.No.25963/2017. This Court disposed of the said W.P.No.25963/2017 along with connected writ petition on 29.01.2020 whereby the impugned orders dated 09.05.2017 and 04.08.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were set aside. It is further submitted that immediately after the order of this Court, the petitioner has submitted the representations at Annexures-A to C seeking the respondents to enter his name in the computerized RTC pursuant to the direction of this Court. It is also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner vide Official Memorandum dated 25.07.2022 has directed the jurisdictional Tahasildar to implement the order of this Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition.

¶30

3. Per contra, Sri.Seshu V., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the revenue authorities would verify whether the order of the learned Single Judge has been assailed before the Division Bench and then they would take

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:32175 WP No.18860 of 2023

¶32

appropriate steps keeping in mind the official memorandum dated 25.07.2022 at Annexure-K on the

¶33

representations submitted by the petitioner.

¶34

4. I have heard Sri.Rakshit R.Shresty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Seshu V., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶35

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has acquired title by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 22.12.2004 and pursuant to the said sale deed, revenue records have mutated in his name. The respondent No.3Assistant Commissioner has initiated suo-moto proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act alleging that there is a violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and ordered for restoration of land in favour of the State Government. The petitioner has assailed the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru and the appellate authority has confirmed the

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:32175 WP No.18860 of 2023

¶37

order of the Assistant Commissioner, being aggrieved by said orders, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.25963/2017, wherein this Court has set aside both the orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the PTCL Act by allowing of the writ petition. After disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted the representations to the revenue authorities to restore his name in the revenue records by deleting the name of State Government. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has taken immediate steps vide official memorandum dated 25.07.2022 by issuing necessary direction to the subordinate officers to take steps to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. When things stood thus, there is no impediment for the revenue authorities to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The petitioner has submitted representations on 28.06.2023, 10.07.2023, 28.06.2023 to respondent Nos.2 to 4, which are pending before them. There is no

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:32175 WP No.18860 of 2023

¶40

impediment under law to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner and take decision. There is no justification on the part of the revenue authorities to keep the representations pending without taking any decision on such representations. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶43

ii. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the computerized RTC in so far as land in Sy.No.28/39 measuring 1 acre of Lalitadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

No order as to costs.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

BSR

R. Shridhar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Shridhar 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

Sri. C Manjunath Vs Smt. Arpitha

Sri L Siddappa Vs Sri Muniraju

Sri. Gangadharaiah Vs Chandraiah

Smt. Yellamma Vs State of Karnataka

Vasantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Padama Pujari, Vs the State of Karnataka