Dismissed

Mr. Francis Samraj. S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/292/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Special Tahsildar to resurvey land and rectify revenue records after name deletion due to a phodi. The Court held that since the Tahsildar had already considered the representation and issued an endorsement, the prayer could not be reconsidered, thus dismissing the petition with leave to challenge the endorsement.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition disposed of by observing consideration of representation had already taken place.

Mr. Francis Samraj. S Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 292 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 292 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. FRANCIS SAMRAJ. S S/O C P SELVARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, HBR LAYOUT, RING ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶9

REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI MADHUKAR S MANAY S/O SRINIVASA RAO M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.77, SHARADA NILAYA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, ASHWATHANAGAR, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶10

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI KRISHNA MURTHY N, ADV.)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR K.R.PURAM

¶16

¶17

WP No. 292 of 2023

¶18

BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 036.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.10.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND TO MAKE CHANGES ENTRIES AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE R2 TO RE-SURVEY THE LAND BY EARMARKING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.576 MEASURING 1 ACRE 14 GUNTAS AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Though this matter is listed for preliminary hearing,

¶25

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

¶26

Heard learned counsel Sri.Krishnamurthy N. for petitioner and Sri.C.N.Mahadeswaran, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation

¶28

¶29

WP No. 292 of 2023

¶30

dated 19.10.2020 as per Annexure-E and to make changes in the revenue records in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.576, situated at Kalkere village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Sy.No.576 under registered sale deed dated 26.04.2005 and thereafter, in terms of M.R.No.7/2006-07, name of

¶32

the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. Thereafter, phodi was conducted at the request of other land owners of the same survey number. It is the grievance of the petitioner that subsequent to phodi of Sy.No.576, name of the petitioner is deleted from the revenue records i.e., RTC and name of the vendor of the petitioner Sri.Dasappa is entered. In that regard, the petitioner submitted representation at Annexure-E dated 19.10.2020 to the second respondent-Tahsildar to rectify the defect.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 292 of 2023

¶35

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that on consideration of representation of the petitioner at Annexure-E dated 19.10.2020, the second respondent-Tahsildar issued endorsement dated 22.09.2022, which is placed on record along with memo dated 23.03.2023. The endorsement would indicate that no correction could be carried out in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.576 and it is for the petitioner to file an appeal against deletion of his name and entering his vendor name in the RTC.

¶36

The only prayer of the petitioner is for a writ of mandamus to consider the representation dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure-E) to resurvey the land and to enter the name of the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.576 of Kalkere village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The Special Tahsildar, on consideration of representation dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure-E) issued endorsement dated 22.09.2022 refusing the request of the petitioner.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 292 of 2023

¶39

Since the representation of the petitioner is

¶40

considered and endorsement is issued, no mandamus could be issued to consider the said representation. In view of the endorsement dated 22.09.2022, the prayer of the petitioner would no more survive for consideration. It is open for the petitioner to challenge the said endorsement dated 22.09.2022 which is placed on record along with memo dated 23.03.2023.

¶41

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Mr. Francis Samraj. S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Francis Samraj. S 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobha Assets Private Limited Vs Special Agricultural Produce Market Committe for Fruits, Flowers and Vegetables

Smt. Padamakshi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Honnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Nanjundegowda Vs Chief Secretary

Smt Radhamma Vs the State of Karnataka