Disposed

Sri v. Sidda Murthy v the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023WP/4030/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by petitioners claiming ownership in possession of lands. They sought direction to Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar) to revert their names in revenue records as the authorities had wrongly mutated records in favor of the Government. The Court was approached via 'preliminary hearing' and did not issue final orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of. Liberty reserved to petitioners to approach competent authority under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

Sri v Sidda Murthy Vs the Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41279 WP No. 4030 of 2022 C/W WP Nos. 3973 of 2022, 3975 of 2022 & 4010 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.4030 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS.3973 OF 2022, 3975 OF 2022 AND 4010 OF 2022

¶8

IN WP NO.4030 OF 2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. V. SIDDA MURTHY S/O GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.60/16, 12^TH CROSS,WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAGHU BABU N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:41279 WP No. 4030 of 2022 C/W WP Nos. 3973 of 2022, 3975 of 2022 & 4010 of 2022

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 229.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA )

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO REVERT THE NAME OF THE VENDOR OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS LIKE MUTATION AND RTC (SINCE THE SAME IS NOT CHANGED IN TO THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER) AND ETC.

¶24

IN WP NO.3973 OF 2022

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI. B. VENKATESHWARULU S/O VENKATASUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.24/1, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶27

…PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI. RAGHU BABU N., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶31

THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶32

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:41279 WP No. 4030 of 2022 C/W WP Nos. 3973 of 2022, 3975 of 2022 & 4010 of 2022

¶35

BANGALORE-560 002.

¶36

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 229.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶39

¶40

IN WP NO.3975 OF 2022

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

SRI. B. VENKATESHWARULU S/O VENKATASUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.24/1, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶43

…PETITIONER

¶44

(BY SRI. RAGHU BABU N., ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶47

THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:41279 WP No. 4030 of 2022 C/W WP Nos. 3973 of 2022, 3975 of 2022 & 4010 of 2022

¶50

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶51

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 229.

¶52

…RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶54

¶55

IN WP NO.4010 OF 2022

¶56

BETWEEN:

¶57

SRI. B. VENKATESHWARULU S/O VENKATASUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.24/1, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶58

…PETITIONER

¶59

(BY SRI. RAGHU BABU N., ADVOCATE)

¶60

AND:

¶61

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶62

THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:41279 WP No. 4030 of 2022 C/W WP Nos. 3973 of 2022, 3975 of 2022 & 4010 of 2022

¶65

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶66

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶67

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 229.

¶68

…RESPONDENTS

¶69

(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶70

¶71

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶72

HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

In these Writ Petitions, petitioners have sought for

¶75

direction to respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to revert the name of the respective petitioners in the revenue records. It is the grievance of the petitioners that

¶76

¶77

NC: 2023:KHC:41279 WP No. 4030 of 2022 C/W WP Nos. 3973 of 2022, 3975 of 2022 & 4010 of 2022

¶78

the petitioners herein claim to be the owner in possession of respective lands mentioned in these Writ Petitions and the respondent No.4 herein, without considering the right of the petitioners herein has changed the mutation register in favour of the Government and feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶79

I have heard Sri. Raghu Babu N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C.N. Mahadeshwaran, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents in these writ petitions.

¶80

Sri. Raghu Babu N., learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the respondent - authorities have inadvertently / illegally changed the mutation entry in favour of the Government and as such, note has been

¶81

made despite the fact that jurisdictional Sub-Division Officer has passed an order under Sections 79A and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, 'the Act'). He further contended that, the petitioners have approached the respondent - authorities. However, no action has been

¶82

¶83

NC: 2023:KHC:41279 WP No. 4030 of 2022 C/W WP Nos. 3973 of 2022, 3975 of 2022 & 4010 of 2022

¶84

taken by respondent No.4 to revert the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

¶85

Per contra, Sri. C.N. Mahadeswaran, learned

¶86

Additional Government Advocate submitted that in terms of Sections 127 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, it is open for the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to redress their grievance in the matter and as such, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

¶87

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the petitioners claim to be the owner in possession of different lands as mentioned in the Writ Petitions and they are aggrieved by the fact that respondent No.4 has stated in the revenue records that

¶88

the land belongs to the Government and as such, petitioners have sought for a direction to respondent No.4 to enter the name of the respective petitioners in the revenue records pertaining to the lands in question. In

¶89

¶90

NC: 2023:KHC:41279 WP No. 4030 of 2022 C/W WP Nos. 3973 of 2022, 3975 of 2022 & 4010 of 2022

¶91

that view of the matter, if any order has been made in so far as revenue records are concerned, the only avenue available to the aggrieved parties is to approach the competent authority under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶92

In that view of the matter, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority to redress their grievance in a manner known to law, Writ Petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority and in such an event, the period spent by the petitioners before this Court be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶93

SD/JUDGE

¶94

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

¶95

sac

Sri v. Sidda Murthy v the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Sidda Murthy v the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L Basavaraju Vs N Lingaiah

Sri K P Rajesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Jayaram Hegde Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Gopalakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T.B.A. Rehman Vs State of Karnataka