Allowed

Indresh H N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/16330/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mutation of their names by inheritance in respect of inam land granted to their grandfather, whose registration certificate was unchallenged and whose name appeared in RTCs from 1976 to 1989. The Tahasildar refused citing mismatch between PR number and survey number. The High Court quashed the endorsements and directed mutation within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Indresh H N Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36722 WP No. 16330 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 16330 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

INDRESH H.N, S/O NANJAPPA H.S, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶6

RAVISH H.N, S/O NANJAPPA H.S, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶7

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HONNAVALI VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 213.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. SHANTAKUMAR K C.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKLESHPURA SUB-DIVISION, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 123.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR, ALUR TALUK, ALUR - 573 213. HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.HARISHA A S., AGA)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36722 WP No. 16330 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENTS ISSUED BY THE R-4 - TAHASILDAR, ALUR TALUK, VIDE NO. R K 109/2023-24 DTD 13.02.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ANOTHER ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.RRT(PALYA)235/2023-24 DTD 13.03.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT THE R-4 TO PASS APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE ORDER IN RESPECT OF ISSUANCE OF KHATA AND COMPUTERIZED RTC AS PER ANNEXURE-G DTD 15.11.2023.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

A captioned petition is filed aggrieved by the endorsement issued by 4^th respondent-Tahasildar,

¶24

declining to carry forward the names of petitioners in terms of grant in computerized RTC.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned AGA.

¶26

Petition land admittedly is an inam land. Petitioners contend that their grandfather namely late H.S.Sannegowda was a registered owner of coffee estate to an extent of 1 Acre in Sy.No.20 corresponding PR.18.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:36722 WP No. 16330 of 2024

¶29

Petitioners contend that Certificate of Registration was issued by Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, vide order dated 22.07.1977 in terms of Section 14 of Coffee Market Expansion Act, 1942. Consequently, the Registration Certificate was issued which is produced and evidenced at Annexure-A. The original grantees name was reflected in RTCs from 1976 to 1989. Petitioners contend that their grandfather died on 24.11.1997. After the death of original grantee, Mr.H.S.Sannegowda having inherited the property, left behind by the original grantee, approached the 4^th respondent and submitted an application

¶30

requesting to mutate the name of petitioners by way of inheritance to an extent of 20 guntas each.

¶31

The 4^th respondent has issued two impugned

¶32

endorsements indicating that petitioners names cannot be carried forward in the computerized records on the premise that PR particulars relating to land do not align and tally with Sy.No.20. On this count, the 4^th respondent has declined to act on the representation and

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:36722 WP No. 16330 of 2024

¶35

consequently, these two impugned endorsements are issued.

¶36

Having examined the records, there is no dispute that the petitioners grandfather was a registered owner of coffee estate with Certificate of Registration issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, evidenced at Annexure-A. Petitioners grandfather's name was duly reflected in the revenue records from 1976 to 1989. There are some technical glitch and that in itself cannot constitute a ground to decline to mutate the names of legal heirs of original grantee Sri.H.S.Sannegowda. The 4^th respondent-Tahasildar cannot defer and deny the petitioners right to get their names mutated in the RTC by way of inheritance. Registration Certificate issued in favour

¶37

of original grantee at Annexure-A is intact and there is no challenge to the said Certificate of Registration. The 4^th respondent-Tahasildar shall make all endeavor and see that petitioners names are mutated by way of inheritance. The stand taken by the State that PR number does not tally with Sy.No.20, also cannot be acceded to. Copy of

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36722 WP No. 16330 of 2024

¶39

the RTCs is placed on record, evidenced at Annexure-B. Sy.No.20 (PR. 18) is clearly reflected in the RTCs. Prima facie , this PR.18 corresponds to Sy.No.20. Therefore, this court is of the view that petitioners have a legal right to get their names mutated by way of inheritance. The 4^th respondent-Tahasildar is equally obligated to mutate the names of legal heirs of petitioners. In that view of the matter, this is a fit case to issue mandamus. Accordingly, this court passes the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

[i] The impugned endorsements are hereby

¶42

quashed.

¶43

[ii] The 4^th respondent is hereby directed to take cognizance of Registration Certificate, evidenced at Annexure-A and shall also take notice of manual RTCs maintained from 1976 to 1989 and accordingly, steps shall be taken to mutate the names of petitioners legal heirs in the RTCs pertaining to Sy.No.20 (PR.18).

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:36722 WP No. 16330 of 2024

¶46

[iii] This exercise shall be accomplished within a

¶47

period of three months from the date of receipt of certified

¶48

copy of this order.

¶49

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶50

cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Indresh H N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Indresh H N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Savubai Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shahnawaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Eswar Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Guruvamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Albert Vs the Thasildar