Allowed

M Nanjaiah v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023WP/2345/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court directed the Tahasildar, Mandya, to consider the petitioner's representations and conduct an enquiry into the original grantee of land within three months, citing failure to perform statutory duty and prior court directives.

What did the court decide?

The respondent-Tahasildar is directed to consider the representations dated 21.02.2022 and 04.07.2022 and to enquire into the grant as directed by competent authorities within three months.

M Nanjaiah Vs the Tahasildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2345 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2345 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M. NANJAIAH, S/O LATE JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT MALLANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DIST, PIN - 571 401. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANDESH P. NADIGER FOR SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE TAHASILDAR

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT 571401

¶15

(BY SRI.V.SESHU, HCGP)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE TAHASILDAR, MANDYA TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND 04.07.2022 VIDE ANNXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY DECIDE THE DISPUTE RELATING TO MUTATION ENTRY IHC NO.1/87-88 ON HIS FILE.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 2345 of 2023

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent.

¶23

Though the matter is listed for Preliminary

¶24

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

¶25

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sandesh P.

¶26

Nadiger for Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.V.Seshu for respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to

¶28

Annexure-B would submit that name of one Sri.Javaraiah

¶29

bin Nanjaiah was entered in place of Sri.Nanjaiah bin late Nanjaiah in respect of the land in Sy.No.199 measuring 81 guntas situated at Mallanayakanakatte Village, Mandya

¶30

3 - WP No. 2345 of 2023

¶31

Taluk, against which one Smt.Kanthamma and two others filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 01.07.2013, directed the Tahasildar, Mandya to hold an enquiry to find out who is the original grantee. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandya affirmed the order of Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure-B). Both the order of Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner was the subject matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.46843/2015. This Court by order dated 10.01.2020, declined to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as Assistant Commissioner and observed that the Tahasildar shall hold enquiry as directed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, to find out as to who is the original grantee. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even to this date, the Tahasildar has not taken any action to enquire with regard to original grantee in respect of land

¶32

¶33

WP No. 2345 of 2023

¶34

in Sy.No.199 to an extent of 81 guntas. Learned counsel would submit that in that regard, petitioner submitted representations at Annexures-D and E dated 21.02.2022 and 04.07.2022 respectively and the said representations are also not considered. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand would submit that the Tahasildar would take appropriate action within a reasonable time and he prays for passing appropriate order.

¶36

A perusal of the writ petition papers would indicate that the Deputy Commissioner as well as this Court in W.P.No.46843/2015, directed the Tahasildar to find out as to who is the original grantee of land in Sy.No.199 to an extent of 81 guntas of Mallanayakanakatte Village, Mandya Taluk. The respondent – Tahasildar has failed to perform his statutory duty and to act as directed. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled for a writ as prayed. Hence, the following:

¶37

¶38

WP No. 2345 of 2023

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The respondent-Tahasildar is directed to consider representations at Annexures-D and E dated 21.02.2022 and 04.07.2022 respectively and to take action to enquire into the grant as directed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-B) and also this Court at Annexure-C dated 10.01.2020 in W.P.No.46843/2015, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

M Nanjaiah v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Nanjaiah v. the Tahasildar

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 L a Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kenchaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr K Venkatagiri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K P Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Naganna S Vs the Land Tribunal