Allowed

Smt Indiramma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/25055/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing the Tahsildar to effect khata changes in respect of Inam lands based on an endorsement assuring such changes and Land Tribunal occupancy rights. The Court found complete inaction by the Tahsildar contrary to his own endorsement and allowed the petition, directing khata changes within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tahsildar directed to effect khata changes in the RTC by taking cognizance of the Land Tribunal Order within three months.

Smt Indiramma Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38331 WP No. 25055 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.25055 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.INDIRAMMA W/O LATE LOKESH AGED 51 YEARS NELLIGERE VILLAGE BELLUR HOBLI

¶9

NAGAMANAGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI.DINESH S/O LATE VENKATESHAIAH AGED 46 ABOUT YEARS BELLUR HOBLI NAGAMANAGALA TALUK KARABYLU NELLIGERE VILLAGE MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432

¶12

SMT.JYOTHI AGED 39 YEARS W/O LATE KUMAR 202, 3^RD MAIN, 8^TH CROSS LAKSHMIDEVI NAGARA NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE - 560 096

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:38331 WP No. 25055 of 2024

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI.K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR NAGAMANGALA TALUK NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER OR DIRECTION, TO EFFECT THE KHATHA IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY. NO.10 MEASURING 11 GUNTAS, SY. NO.49 MEASURING 4 ACRES 21 GUNTAS OF NELLIGERE VILLAGE AND SY. NO.68 MEASURING 8 ACRE 16 GUNTAS AND SY. NO.23/2 MEASURING 1 ACRE 2 GUNTAS OF KAARABAILU VILLAGE, BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE-A DATED 10/05/2024 BEARING NO. I.N.A./173/175/ 1980-81, WITHIN A TIME FRAME AND ETC.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38331 WP No. 25055 of 2024

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for

¶28

respondents.

¶29

2. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking mandamus against respondent No.2 – Tahasildar to effect

¶30

changes in the katha pertaining to the lands bearing Sy. No.10 measuring 11 guntas, Sy. No.49 measuring 4 acres 21 guntas of Nelligere Village and Sy. No.68 measuring 8 acres 16 guntas and Sy. No.23/2 measuring

¶31

1 acre 2 guntas of Kaarabailu Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, in terms of the endorsement issued by the Tahasildar on 10.05.2024, wherein respondent No.2

¶32

– Tahasildar has assured that the steps will be taken to effect changes in the katha.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38331 WP No. 25055 of 2024

¶34

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

petitioners and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶36

4. The petitioners claim to be absolute owners of the land bearing Sy. Nos.10 and 49 of Nelligere Village and Sy. Nos.68 and 23/2 of Karbailu Village in Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk. The petitioners assert that these lands are Inam lands and there is a grant in favour of the petitioners' ancestor namely Venkateshaiah. A representation is submitted to respondent No.2 - Tahasildar to effect changes in katha by taking cognizance of the occupancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal.

¶37

5. Though respondent No.2 – Tahasildar has assured

¶38

that necessary steps will be taken and changes will be effected in the RTC, which is evidenced at endorsement dated 10.05.2024, there is complete laxness on the part of respondent No.2 – Tahasildar. Therefore, the writ petition is filed.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38331 WP No. 25055 of 2024

¶40

6. On reviewing the records, this Court would find

¶41

that respondent No.2 – Tahasildar having assured vide endorsement dated 10.05.2024 that the petitioner’s name will be reflected in the RTC, there is complete inaction on the part of respondent No.2. There is complete lack of diligence on the part of respondent No.2 – Tahasidar contrary to his own endorsement evidenced at Annexure –A. The petitioners have a legal right to seek change of katha as they are tracing their right through their ancestor – Venkateshaiah. Respondent No.2 –

¶42

Tahasildar is equally obligated to effect changes in the katha by considering the petitioners' request.

¶43

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

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

(ii) Respondent No.2 shall effect changes in the katha by taking cognizance of the Land Tribunal Order.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:38331 WP No. 25055 of 2024

¶49

(iii) The petitioners shall furnish the copy of the Land Tribunal along with the order passed by this Court to respondent No.2 – Tahasildar within a period of four weeks.

¶50

(iv) On receipt of Land Tribunal Order, respondent No.2 – Tahasildar shall effect necessary changes as indicated in the Land Tribunal order.

¶51

(v) This exercise shall be accomplished within period of three months from the date of receipt of Land Tribunal Order and the order passed by this Court.

¶52

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶53

NBM

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt Indiramma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Indiramma 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

Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayana Sheety @ G a Narayana Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkataramasheety Alias K S Venkataramana Vs State of Karnataka

Sree Siddaganga Math Vs State of Karnataka

Krishnappa @ Ramakrishnappa v B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.T.K. Rajagopal, Vs the State of Karnataka