Disposed

Sri Chikkabasavaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2023WP/4075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought computerized RTC extracts for land where he claims possession and pays taxes. The Court observed that manual RTC and tax receipts evidenced his name. It directed the petitioner to apply directly to the concerned Tahasildar for computerized certificates instead of issuing a court direction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply for computerized RTC extracts from the concerned Tahasildar; no direction to respondents.

Sri Chikkabasavaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 4075 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4075 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. CHIKKABASAVARAJU, S/O SRI. VASUDEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT HUTTANAHALLI, CHIKKAJALA, BENGALURU NORTH, KARNATAKA - 562 157.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, XHCM+PXC, KG ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 009.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶16

¶17

WP No. 4075 of 2023

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 16/12/2022 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE COMPUTERIZED KHATA AND RTC IN RESPECT OF 2 ACRE 20 GUNTAS OF LAND SITUATED SY.NO. 73 UTTANAHALLI, JWALA 1 HOBLI, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AS SOUGHT FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶22

Though the matter is listed for preliminary

¶23

hearing, with the consent of both learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the petition papers.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 4075 of 2023

¶27

4. It is submitted that the petitioner is in

¶28

possession and enjoyment of land in Sy.No.73 to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas situated at Uttanahalli, Jwala1 hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru for more than 40 years.

¶29

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶30

RTC stands in the name of the petitioner since 1979 and he has paid taxes till date in respect of the aforesaid land. The manual RTC extracts and bhoomi tax paid receipts are produced vide Annexure-'B' and Annexure-'C' respectively which reflects the name of petitioner Sri. Chikkabasavaraju. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents have not issued computerized RTC extracts even though respondent No.1 has directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation, Respondent No.2 has failed to consider the same.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 4075 of 2023

¶33

Learned HCGP would submit that the petitioner

¶34

has not made the concerned Tahasildar as a party to the writ petition and there is no request to the concerned Tahasildar who would be the competent authority to issue computerized RTC. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to make appropriate application before concerned Tahasildar requesting for issuance of computerized RTC extracts. The manual RTC extracts and bhoomi tax paid receipts are placed on record vide Annexure - 'B' and 'C' which would indicate the name of the petitioner at column No.9 as well as column No.12 from 1979-1980 to 1998-1999. Further, the RTC for the year 2020-2021 (Annexure-B series) indicates the name of the petitioner at Column No.9 and column No.12 of computerized RTC and it is for the petitioner to apply for

¶36

¶37

WP No. 4075 of 2023

¶38

the same and get RTC for the year subsequent to 20202021. As the RTC produced by the petitioner indicates the entry of petitioner's name in computerized RTC, there is no need to issue further direction to the concerned

¶39

Tahasildar. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

SSD

Sri Chikkabasavaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chikkabasavaraju 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

Marigowda Vs the Tahsildar

Sri Hanumantharayappa Vs the Headquarters Assistant

Smt. Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Prabananda Nicholas Mathias Vs the Land Tribunal

Smt. Palakshi Vs the State of Karnataka

A Mallikarjuna Rao Vs Puja Megastructures Pvt. Ltd.