Allowed

Shashidhar H K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/16605/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's grandfather's land ownership was reflected in revenue records until computerization omitted his name; authorities rejected the petitioner's request citing unavailable records. The court held it is the revenue authorities' duty to maintain and reconstruct records and set aside both endorsements.

What did the court decide?

Both Tahasildar endorsements (Annexures G and H) quashed; Tahasildar directed to consider petitioner's case in accordance with law within 12 weeks.

Shashidhar H K Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41675 WP No. 16605 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 16605 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHASHIDHAR H.K., S/O KUBERAPPA H.S., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O HONNAVALLI VILALGE, PALYA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK-573 217, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHANTAKUMAR K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

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

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41675 WP No. 16605 of 2024

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENTS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4-TAHASILDAR, ALUL TALUK VIDE NO.R.K.151/2023-24 DATED 02.03.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ANOTHER ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.R.R.T.(PALYA)232/2023-24 DATED 13.03.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 his grandfather purchased the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition by way of a registered sale deed dated 15.03.1978. Revenue records till 1997 also reflected the name of the grandfather of the petitioner. However, after computerization of RTC, his name has been left out and presently the petitioner has succeeded to the property. He has made a request to the authorities concerned to enter his name in the revenue records. However, the authorities concerned without applying their mind have rejected it on the ground that the records are not available with the department. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41675 WP No. 16605 of 2024

¶25

is filed praying to set aside the communication issued by respondent No.4 in this regard and also direct respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders on the request made by the petitioner.

¶26

It is the duty of respondent-authorities to maintain proper revenue records in respect of lands within their jurisdiction. If the documents are destroyed, it is their responsibility to reconstruct the same and see to it that the revenue entries are duly entered reflecting the names

¶27

of the owners/occupants of the lands. They cannot issue

¶28

an endorsement as it has been issued in the instant case, wherein, they have stated that because the entries have been erased, request of the petitioner cannot be considered. The said act of respondent No.4 has to be considered highly irresponsible and he is warned to act in accordance with law. For the said reason writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:41675 WP No. 16605 of 2024

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Impugned endorsement dated 02.03.2024

¶33

bearing No.Dgï.PÉ.151/2023-24 passed by

¶34

respondent No.4 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

¶35

ii) The endorsement dated 13.03.2024 bearing No.Dgï.Dgï.n(¥Á¼Àå)232/2023-24 passed by

¶36

respondent No.4 vide Annexure-H to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

¶37

iii) Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and take appropriate decision within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶38

iv) Accordingly, writ petition is allowed .

¶39

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶40

PGG

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Shashidhar H K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashidhar H K v. the 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

Sbicap Trustee Company Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs the Designated Committee

Sbicap Trustee Company Ltd. Vs Tax Recovery Officer

Sri Srinivasa P Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr B Muralidhar Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Dcit)

Smt Huchamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner