Allowed

Sri Kashyap N Patel v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023WP/36787/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an endorsement refusing a rectified land survey sketch. It directed the Third Respondent to rectify the sketch as per the Fourth Respondent's correction within three months, given undisputed title.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 07.06.2017 set aside; Third Respondent directed to rectify sketch as per Fourth Respondent's annexure-E within three months.

Sri Kashyap N Patel Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41270 WP No. 36787 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 36787 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI KASHYAP N. PATEL S/O LATE N.D.PATEL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.484, 15^TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560080.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H. SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560001.

¶13

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU -560009.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU -560049.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:41270 WP No. 36787 of 2017

¶17

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU -560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA )

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-F. AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶24

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the Endorsement dated 07.06.2017 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-F) inter alia sought for direction to the second respondent to accept the rectified sketch in respect of the land in question as per Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41270 WP No. 36787 of 2017

¶26

Sri. H. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, there is no dispute with

¶27

regard to title of the property as the father of the petitioner has purchased the land bearing Survey No.122 to an extent of 5 acres 10 guntas under two sale deeds and in this regard, an application was made by the father of the petitioner to conduct phodi and in this regard, the fourth respondent herein has passed an order dated 06.02.2017 and arrived at a conclusion that there is discrepancy in respect of the survey and same was rectified and accordingly sketch has been produced along with Annexure-E to the writ petition. The said aspect is also accepted by the third respondent herein. However,

¶28

the second respondent has expressed that the direction issued by respondent No.4 cannot be accepted on the ground of Sri. A.T. Ramaswamy Committee report. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order relates to the said aspect requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:41270 WP No. 36787 of 2017

¶31

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order.

¶32

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of writ papers would indicate that father of the petitioner had purchased an extent of 5 acres 10 guntas under two sale deeds in respect of the survey No.122 of Cheemasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. Undisputedly the title of the property is not in question. The fourth respondent herein having arrived at a conclusion as per Annexure-E, has rectified the sketch relating to the property in question which has been annexed along with Annexure-E. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, as the property in question belongs to the father of the petitioner and on the demise of father, succeeded by the petitioner, the observation made by the second respondent herein cannot be accepted in so far as the conclusion arrived with regard to rectification of the survey report. In that view of the

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:41270 WP No. 36787 of 2017

¶34

¶35

matter, the impugned Endorsement dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent No.2 is set aside and

¶36

therefore, the third respondent herein is directed to rectify sketch in terms of the sketch as has been rectified by the fourth respondent which is annexed along with AnnexureE, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

sac

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri Kashyap N Patel v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kashyap N Patel 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. Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Sidda Murthy Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri v Gopalakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T Rama Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sowbhagya Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Lakshamma @ K Lakshmi Vs General MANAGER-1