Allowed

Sri.P. Manjunatha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024WP/12271/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking the restoration of a petitioner's name in revenue records. The court found the Tahasildar's mutation to be illegal and contrary to an enquiry report, directing the officer to restore the name within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, and the Tahasildar is directed to restore the petitioner's name in the RTC within six weeks.

Sri.P. Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38631 WP No. 12271 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.12271 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.P.MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE PILLAPPA R/AT NO.85, CHOKKANAHALLI JALA HOBLI, BAGALURU POST YALAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 149 (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENS IS NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.K.MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶12

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-I BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 009

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:38631 WP No. 12271 of 2024

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR YALAHANKA BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560063

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R4 TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.173/P10 OF MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, MEASURING 39 GUNTAS AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents.

¶23

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking mandamus against respondent No.4 to restore the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38631 WP No. 12271 of 2024

¶25

petitioner's name in the revenue records pertaining to Sy. No.173/P10 of Marenahalli Village measuring 39 guntas.

¶26

The subject matter of the petition was admittedly gomala land. The petitioner submitted an application before the Bagar Hukum Committee seeking regularization of 2 acres in Sy. No.173 of Marenahalli Village. The Land Grant Committee, after due enquiry under Section 108 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 recommended to regularize the petitioner's unauthorized occupation. Consequently, respondent No.4 - Tahasildar issued a Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioner, which is evident vide order dated 22.09.1997. The petitioner has deposited the requisite amount demanded by the Authorities and the mutation also came to be effected as per MR No.2/97-98.

¶27

Respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner suspecting that petitioner's grant order was obtained fraudulently initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Revenue Act, 1964. On enquiry,

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38631 WP No. 12271 of 2024

¶29

respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner, however, has found that the grant in favour of the petitioner was recommended by the Land Grant Committee and also found that respondent No.4 - Tahasildar has issued Grant Certificate, which is preceded by recommendation under Section 108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner, after conclusion of the enquiry, has dropped the proceedings, which is evidenced at Annexure - G.

¶30

Respondent No.4 - Tahasildar, though takes cognizance of the order of respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner, but still proceeds to mutate the name of the State in the ownership column. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned mutation vide MR No.H32/2014-15 preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner. Respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner has set aside the mutation and has directed respondent No.4 -

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38631 WP No. 12271 of 2024

¶32

Tahasildar to restore the name of the petitioner to the petition land.

¶33

Though there is a direction by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, which is evidenced at Annexure-J and communication dated 23.02.2018 addressed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner to respondent No.4 - Tahasildar vide Annexure -K, there is complete laxness on the part of respondent No.4 - Tahasildar in not restoring the petitioner's name in the RTC pertaining to the petition land.

¶34

The action of respondent No.4 is clearly found to be contrary to the enquiry conducted by respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G. This Court has also noticed that respondent No.4 contrary to the enquiry conducted vide Annexure-G taking cognizance of the very said order strangely deletes the name of the petitioner and enters the name of the State to the RTC. This action is clearly illegal and capricious. Respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner in an appeal under Section

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38631 WP No. 12271 of 2024

¶36

136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has not only set-aside the mutation certified by respondent No.4 - Tahasildar but also sent a communication on 23.02.2018 evidenced at Annexure-K directing respondent No.4 - Tahasildar to restore the petitioner's name.

¶37

These significant details clearly reflect the conduct of respondent No.4 - Tahasildar and also indicates there is clear dereliction of duty on the part of respondent No.4 - Tahasildar. Though this is a fit case to initiate action against respondent No.4 - Tahasildar, having regard to the fact that learned AGA has assured this Court that the petitioner's name will be restored to the RTC pertaining to the petition land, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) Respondent No.4 - Tahasildar is directed to forthwith restore the petitioner's name in the RTC pertaining to the land

¶41