Allowed

Sri Lakshmaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/22292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to direct the Tahasildar to issue katha and mutate his name for land granted under the Inam Abolition Act, backed by an appellate decree declaring him absolute owner. Court held revenue authorities must align mutation with the grant and decree, and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Tahasildar directed to mutate petitioner's name in RTC for Sy. No.80 (14 guntas) within eight weeks, subject to challenge to R.A.No.97/2008.

Sri Lakshmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39590 WP No. 22292 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.22292 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA RESIDING AT PUTTANDUR AGRAHARA (V) WHITE FIELD POST BENGALURU - 560 066

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NAGESH S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

¶15

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KANDAYA BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 009

¶16

THE TEHASIDLAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K R PURA HOBLI - 560 036

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:39590 WP No. 22292 of 2024

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 01.03.2024 AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents.

¶26

2. The petitioner is seeking mandamus against respondent No.3 to issue katha and mutate petitioner’s name in the revenue records relating to the petition land bearing Sy. No.80 measuring 14 guntas.

¶27

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶28

4. The petitioner is asserting title over the petition

¶29

land based on the grant made in his favour by respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner under Inam Abolition

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39590 WP No. 22292 of 2024

¶31

Act, 1954. The petitioner is placing reliance on the grant, which is evidenced at Annexure-A. The petitioner is also placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.97/2008. The Appellate Court, while reversing the judgment rendered by the Trial Court, has allowed the said appeal and decreed the suit thereby declaring the petitioner as the absolute owner of the petition land.

¶32

5. Learned AGA has strongly resisted this petition on the ground that State is intending to challenge the judgment and decree rendered in R.A.No.97/2008. The second limb of arguments advanced by the learned AGA is that the petition land is Gundu Thopu and therefore, the petitioner cannot assert title over the said land.

¶33

6. Be that as it may, if the State has suffered a decree at the hands by the competent Civil Court, Revenue Authorities are bound to effect changes in the katha strictly aligning to the Grant Order and consequent decree granted by the competent Civil Court. Unless the judgment and

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39590 WP No. 22292 of 2024

¶35

decree rendered in R.A.No.97/2008 and the Grant Order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act are tested and challenged, the Revenue Authorities cannot decline to effect mutation aligning with the Grant Order followed by the judgment rendered by the competent Civil Court. The petitioner, pursuant to the grant in favour of his father and in the light of the decree granted by the Appellate Court in R.A No.97/2008, has acquired legal right to seek mandamus against the respondents. Respondent No.3 is equally obligated to effect changes in the katha in terms of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Since

¶36

there is inaction on the part of respondents, this is a fit case to issue directions.

¶37

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:39590 WP No. 22292 of 2024

¶42

(ii) Respondent No.3 - Tahasildar is hereby directed to mutate petitioner’s name in the RTC pertaining to the petition land bearing Sy. No.80 measuring 14 guntas situated at Pattandur Agrahara Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶43

(iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶44

(iv) However, it is made clear that change of katha in the petitioner’s name in the RTC pertaining to the petition land will be subject to challenge to judgment and decree rendered in R.A.No.97/2008.

¶45

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶46

NBM

¶47

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

Sri Lakshmaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshmaiah 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

Smt. Shanthamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Muneer Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Subbarayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Venkategowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mr T S Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

N. Viswanath Vs the State of Karnataka