Allowed

Smt Chikkamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024WP/24523/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider the Tahsildar's recommendation for phodi and durasthi of land allotted under a compromise decree, pending for 14 years. Court held the Deputy Commissioner was obligated to act and directed orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Deputy Commissioner directed to pass appropriate orders on the Tahsildar's recommendation in accordance with law within six weeks.

Smt Chikkamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39100 WP No. 24523 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 24523 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. CHIKKAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT KODIPALYA, VIDYAPEETA POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K.S. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. HARISH A.S, AGA)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39100 WP No. 24523 of 2024

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS UPON THE RECOMMENDATION FORWARDED BY THE R2 TAHASILDAR VIDE ANNEXURE-F NO.LND 1CR 135/9-10 DATED NIL AND DIRECT AND ALSO TO EFFECT PODI AND DURASTH IN RESPECT OF 1 ACRE 20 GUNTAS OF SY. O. 14 CHUDENAPURA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶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 accepts notice for respondents No.1 to

¶23

¶24

The captioned petition is filed seeking mandamus against respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner to consider the recommendations made by respondent No.4/Tahasildar, vide Annexure-F and pass appropriate orders.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4. Perused the records.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39100 WP No. 24523 of 2024

¶28

The petitioner is tracing title pursuant to a compromise recorded in O.S.No.2169/2007. The petitioner asserts that under the compromise, she was allotted 1 acre 5 guntas. Based on the compromise decree, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No.4/Tahasildar seeking phodi and durasthi. On receipt of application, respondent No.4/Tahasildar has forwarded the said proposal for seeking approval from respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner since the petitioner is seeking single window durasthi. Though this proposal was forwarded by respondent No.4/Tahasildar way back in 2010, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is found to be conveniently squatting over the application for almost 14 years. This is a clear case of laxness and dereliction of duty by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner, based on a compromise decree, has acquired a legal right to seek phodi and durasthi. Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is equally obligated to consider the proposal sent by respondent No.4/Tahasildar and pass appropriate orders.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39100 WP No. 24523 of 2024

¶30

Learned AGA, referring to the records would assure this Court that respondent No.2/Deputy

¶31

Commissioner will look into this proposal and pass appropriate orders if some reasonable time is granted.

¶32

Recording the assurance given by learned AGA,

¶33

this Court passes the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶36

ii. Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law;

¶37

iii. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶38

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶39

HDK

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: BHK

Smt Chikkamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chikkamma 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

Sri G R Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Muddurangamma Vs Gangamma

Sri. Srinivasa Babu Vs Smt. Radhamma

Avinash Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rukmini .P.H Vs the State of Karnataka