Allowed

Sri S Vishwanath @ Gundappa v. the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023WP/2332/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an endorsement issued by the Tahsildar regarding the proposed formation of a new village on his land. The Court held that the order was passed without application of mind due to an impending future decision and quashed it, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 22.12.2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted to Respondent No.1 to reconsider the representation afresh and pass an appropriate order within two months.

Sri S Vishwanath @ Gundappa Vs the Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2332 of 2023 NC: 2023:KHC:40187

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 2332 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S. VISHWANATH @ GUNDAPPA, S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 1ST 'C' CROSS, REMCO LAYOUT, 5th 'B' MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, HAMPINAGARA POST OFFICE, BANGALORE - 560 104.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.N. NITHISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR,

¶14

CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 2332 of 2023 NC: 2023:KHC:40187

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.12.2022 VIDE ANNX-K ISSUED BY THE R-1 BEARING NO.KAM.GRAM.CR.27/2022-23.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the endorsement dated 22.12.2022 at (Annexure-K) issued by respondent No.1.

¶24

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.Nos.87/8, 87/9, 87/1B and 88/3 of Chunganahalli Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, though the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land in question, some of the persons are interfering with the possession of the land in question and as such, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.19/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and the said suit came to be disposed off.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 2332 of 2023 NC: 2023:KHC:40187

¶27

Thereafter, a direction was issued to respondent No.1 herein to conduct survey in respect of Sy.No.89 belonging to the Government to find out, if any encroachments are made therein. In this regard, the proceedings were initiated before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Tumkur District, in Bhoomu Sibbandi Dooru 12/2022-2023 and the petitioner entered appearance in the said proceedings and the action has been taken to remove the encroachment thereon made on the Government land. However, pursuant to the same, the petitioner has made a representation dated 12.08.2022 to respondent No.2 to take decision in the matter and pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 has not taken any decision. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court in WP.No.20867/2022 and this Court by the order dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure-J) directed the concerned respondent to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶28

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, respondent No.1 herein has passed impugned order dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure-K) holding that the steps have been taken to

¶29

¶30

WP No. 2332 of 2023 NC: 2023:KHC:40187

¶31

form a new village as Gantiganapalya and therefore, issued the impugned endorsement produced as per (Annexure-K). Feeling aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶32

I have heard, Sri.K.N.Nithish, learned counsel

¶33

for the petitioner and Sri.Mohammed Jaffar Shah, AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶34

Sri.K.N.Nithish, learned counsel appearing for

¶35

the petitioner contended that, both the villages namely Chunganahalli and Gantiganapalya are situate in the same Taluk, in which, respondent No.1 is having jurisdiction and in that view of the matter, the proposed formation of the new village in future cannot be a basis to reject the claim made by the petitioner and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.

¶36

Per contra , learned AGA, justified the impugned order produced as per Annexure-K and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶37

5 - WP No. 2332 of 2023 NC: 2023:KHC:40187

¶38

Having heard learned counsel appearing for

¶39

both the parties and taking into consideration that, there is no dispute with regard to the title of the petitioner in respect of the land referred to above, however, as there is interference made by some of the people, and in this regard a suit has been filed and decree has been made thereon against such persons. In the background of these aspects and on carefully examining the reasons assigned by respondent No.1 herein at (Annexure-K), wherein, it is stated that, the Government has taken decision to form a new village and further as Sy.No.89 of the Chunganahalli is the subject matter of the suit, I am of the opinion that, there is no application of mind by respondent No.1 herein to issue the endorsement stating that, in future, a village will be formed in the subject land. It is made clear that the revenue-Authority shall apply their mind in a manner known to law and cannot issue an endorsement stating that they will take decision in respect of the subject matter in future. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that,

¶40

¶41

WP No. 2332 of 2023 NC: 2023:KHC:40187

¶42

the impugned order produced at Annexure-K is passed without application of mind.

¶43

In the result, the writ petition is allowed . The order dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure-K) passed by respondent

¶44

No.1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to consider the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law afresh and shall act in a manner known to law. Respondent No.1 shall pass an appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

URN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: BHK

Sri S Vishwanath @ Gundappa v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Vishwanath @ Gundappa v. the Tahsildar

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. Moosa Beary Vs the Competent Authority and

Sri Nagendra Setty Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Siddappa Vs the Chief Secretary

Gopalappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sriram Vs the State of Karnataka

S N Suresh Vs the Deputy Commissioner