Disposed

Smt. Yellamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2023WP/23626/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing respondent Tahsildar to enter her name in revenue records based on a 1979 grant, despite a 22-year delay in filing this petition. The court held it cannot order entry of name but directed the authorities to consider the representation within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to consider the representation at Annexure-E within four months.

Smt. Yellamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32239 WP No. 23626 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 23626 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. YELLAMMA, W/O NARAYANAPPA @ NARAYANASWAMY, AGED 53 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, NO.121, O.B.CHOODAHALLI VILLAGE, UDAYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 082.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHACHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THASILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, AGA)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:32239 WP No. 23626 of 2021

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXURE-E DATED 11.10.2021 BY WAY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking prayer to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.2 Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation at Annexure-E dated 11.10.2021 and further direction to respondent No.2 to issue RTC, MR on the basis of the Saguvali Chit as per Annexure-A dated 29.11.1979.

¶22

Sri. Jagadeeshachari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have granted land in favour of the petitioner in Sy.No.135 measuring 02 acres situated at B.M. Kavalu, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District as he was unauthorized occupant and thereafter have issued Saguvali Chit on 29.11.1979. It is submitted that pursuant to the issuance

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32239 WP No. 23626 of 2021

¶24

of the Saguvali Chit, the petitioner has paid Kimmath amount as demanded by the authorities and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records despite repeated requests at Annexures‘C’ to ‘E’. Hence, he seeks to allow the Writ Petition by issuing writ of mandamus to the respondents by directing them to enter the name of the petitioner in the RTC.

¶25

Per-contra, Ms. Asma Kouser, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submits that revenue authorities are required to verify various records before taking any steps on the petitioner's representation as to whether the grant made in favour of the petitioner is genuine or not and if the respondents found that the petitioner has a right, title over the subject land, they would take decision. It is submitted that the representations at Annexure-‘C to ‘E’ does not bear any acknowledgment or seal. However, she

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:32239 WP No. 23626 of 2021

¶27

fairly submits that representation at Annexure-E would be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law within time bound manner.

¶28

I have heard Sri. Jagadeeshachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Asma Kouser, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶29

The petitioner is seeking prayer to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation at Annexure-E and enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in Sy.No.135 measuring 02 acres of B.M. Kavalu, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District based on the Saguvali-Chit. On perusal of the documents made available in the Writ Petition, the alleged grant and Saguvali Chit is of the year 1979, however, the petitioner has approached the revenue authorities for the first time seeking to enter his name in the RTCs in the year 2021. There is enormous delay on part of the petitioner in approaching the revenue authorities seeking for change in the revenue records.

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:32239 WP No. 23626 of 2021

¶31

Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot issue positive writ of mandamus to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. However, the revenue authorities are duty bound to consider the representation at Annexure-‘E’ in accordance with law. Hence, interest of justice would be met if the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation at Annexure-‘E’ and take appropriate decision in accordance with law in a time bound manner. Hence, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-E within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶32

With the above directions, the writ petition is

¶33

disposed of.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

MCR CT: ABS

Smt. Yellamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yellamma v. 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

Vasantha Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Shridhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Padama Pujari, Vs the State of Karnataka