Disposed

Bhaskar R. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024WP/12829/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for quashing refusal of revenue entries and directing mutation of 2 acres of land. Court directed respondent to verify land grant genuineness, complete phodi/durasthi and sketch, and enter petitioner's name within six months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to verify grant genuineness, complete phodi/durasthi, prepare 11E sketch and enter petitioner's name in records within six months.

Bhaskar R. Vs State of Karnataka — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50463 WP No. 12829 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.12829 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BHASKAR R. S/O K. RAJAGOPALACHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT RAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE BASETTAHALLI HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDNG DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISISONER CHIKKABALALPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR SIDLAGHATA TALUK SIDLAGHATA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:50463 WP No. 12829 of 2024

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-J THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.07.2023 BEARING NO. RRT/CT/326/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE KATHA REGISTER AND ALSO IN THE MUTATION AND RTC IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY; ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that he became the owner of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.5/1P1 of Ramenahalli Village, Bashettahalli Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, having purchased the same from the legal representatives of the original grantee by name of Venkatarayappa. Thereafter, he made an application to the respondents for getting the revenue entries mutated in his name. The same is refused on the ground that phodi

¶24

and durasthi of the land has not happened and there is a requirement of 11E sketch. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50463 WP No. 12829 of 2024

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing

¶27

for respondents upon instructions submits that the land forms part of Sy.No.5 consisting of several acres and the entire survey number was a gomala land including the land which is claimed by the petitioner. That the petitioner is claiming right over 2 acres of land in the said survey number and phodi and durasthi of the said land has not happened. Only upon verification of the genuineness of the grant said to have been made in favour of Venkatarayappa, phodi and durasthi of the land can be done and thereafter, if the grant found to be genuine, the request of the petitioner can be considered.

¶28

The petitioner is agreeable for the same. Hence, the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. Respondent No.3 is directed to verify the genuineness of the grant said to have been made in favour of Venkatarayappa and if the grant is found to be genuine, after collecting the necessary fee from the petitioner, carry out

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:50463 WP No. 12829 of 2024

¶33

necessary phodi and durasthi, prepare 11E sketch and enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

¶34

ii. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶35

iii. If the decision is taken holding that the grant is not genuine, it is needless to state that the petitioner is having the liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶36

iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶37

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶38

VMB

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Bhaskar R. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar R. 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

Ritnand Balved Education Foundation Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanumantharayappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Lalitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sr T Ramanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Puttaraju Vs State of Karnataka