Allowed

Smt Puttamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2023WP/5675/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a senior citizen beneficiary of land granted to her late husband. The court directed the concerned revenue authorities to consider her representations and conduct durasthi work to fix land boundaries within two months.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents 2 and 5 are directed to consider the petitioner's representations and conduct durasthi work within two months.

Smt Puttamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32240 WP No. 5675 of 2023

¶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. 5675 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PUTTAMMA, W/O LATE DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) RESIDING AT BILLENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, SANTHEBACHAHALLI HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 436.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GANESH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:32240 WP No. 5675 of 2023

¶17

THE ASSISTNAT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 READ WITH 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 5 TO CONDUCT/CARRY OUT DURASTHI WORK AND FIX THE BOUNDARIES IN RESPECT OF LAND GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HUSBAND BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, VIDE NO. SPL.DDR.177/1961-62 DATED 28.08.1961, SY.NO.155, BLOCK NO.34, MEASURING 04 ACRES, SITUATED AT BILLENAHALLI VILLAGE, SANTHEBACHAHALLI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF REPRESENTATIONS DATED 12.07.2021 AND 30.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURES-E AND F, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME AS MAY BE DECIDED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking prayer to issue writ in the nature of mandamus by issuing direction to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to conduct durasthi work and fix boundaries in respect of land in Sy.No.155, Block No.34, measuring 04

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:32240 WP No. 5675 of 2023

¶27

acres, situated at Billenahalli Village, Santhebachahalli Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District.

¶28

Sri. Ganesh S., learned counsel appearing for

¶29

the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 vide order dated 28.08.1961 has granted land bearing Sy.No.155, block No.34 situated at Billenahalli village, Santhebachahalli Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District measuring 04 acres in favour of Late Sri. Dasaiah, the husband of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said grant, the name of Sri. Dasaiah was entered in the revenue records and the said Sri. Dasaiah has expired on 03.08.2019.

¶30

It is submitted that after the death of Sri. Dasaish, husband of the petitioner, the petitioner's name has been entered in the revenue records and the legal heirs of Late Sri. Dasaiah including the petitioner herein have submitted the representations to the respondent Nos.2 and 5 requesting them to carryout

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:32240 WP No. 5675 of 2023

¶32

durasthi work and fix boundaries in respect of the subject land.

¶33

It is further submitted that the said

¶34

representations have not been attended and no durasthi work is carried out as sought by the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to allow the Writ Petition by issuing direction to the respondent authorities to carry out durasthi work and fix boundaries.

¶35

Per-contra, Sri. Seshu V., the learned High

¶36

Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the representations of the petitioner would be considered by the revenue authorities in accordance with law, if reasonable time is granted to them. The said submission is placed on record.

¶37

I have heard Sri. Ganesh S., learned counsel for

¶38

the petitioner, Sri. Seshu V., learned HCGP appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:32240 WP No. 5675 of 2023

¶41

7. The petitioner is claiming that the subject land

¶42

is granted in favour of her husband on 28.08.1961 and pursuant to the said grant, revenue records were mutated in his name and after the demise of her husband the revenue records are in her favour. Hence she has submitted that the representations dated 12.07.2021 and 30.07.2022 seeking the revenue authorities to carryout durasthi work and fix boundaries in respect of the subject land.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the revenue records at Annexure-'D' reflects the name of the petitioner insofar as the subject land and when the owner of the land makes request to the authorities to take decision on the representations submitted by the petitioner by carrying out the durasthi work by fixing the boundaries. The respondent authorities cannot refuse to act on such representations in time bound manner and in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:32240 WP No. 5675 of 2023

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶47

(ii) The respondent Nos.2 and 5 are directed to

¶48

consider the petitioner's representations at Annexures-'E'

¶49

and 'F' within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶50

(iii) The authorities are required to take decision keeping in mind, the records available with them and in accordance with law.

¶51

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is

¶52

disposed of.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: ABS

Smt Puttamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Puttamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt. Yellamma Vs State of Karnataka

Vasantha Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Shridhar Vs the State of Karnataka