Disposed

Sri. Maraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024WP/56699/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a Tahsildar's endorsement refusing to enter his name in revenue records after his father's death, alleging a land grant in his father's favour. The State disputed genuineness of the grant documents. The High Court found disputed facts unsuitable for Article 226 and directed the petitioner to seek revision under Section 136(3) before the Deputy Commissioner.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49450 WP No. 56699 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.56699 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MARAIAH S/O LATE PUTTAMARAIAH ALIAS PUTTAMARA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI KRISHNA MURTHY M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:49450 WP No. 56699 of 2017

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.RRT(D)CR/278/15-16 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 28/31.01.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO EFFECT ENTRY OF THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS PERTAINING TO THE BELOW DESCRIBED IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY, ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Petitioner on the ground that his father was granted certain lands in Sy.No.63 of Lakkenahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk approached the jurisdictional Tahsildar to mutate his name in the revenue records on the ground that his father has died. As the same has not been done, petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.9685/2015. The said writ petition has been disposed of with the following order:

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49450 WP No. 56699 of 2017

¶24

ORDER

¶25

"Smt. Prathima Honnapura, the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.

¶26

2. The petitioner's grievance is that his representation, dated 11.12.2012 (Annexure-F) for effecting the entry in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in question has remained unconsidered.

¶27

3. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's said representation in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that no opinion whatsoever is expressed on the merits of the claims of the petitioner.

¶28

4. Needless to observe that the second respondent Tahsildar shall call upon the petitioner to produce the relevant documents; the petitioner has to produce such documents which are in his possession.

¶29

5. No order as to costs."

¶30

Subsequent to the said order, the second respondent has issued the impugned endorsement dated 28/31.01.2017 vide Annexure-'L' to the writ petition

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49450 WP No. 56699 of 2017

¶32

wherein the request of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the grant made in favour of the petitioner's father is not genuine and there was no grant made at all. Aggrieved by the said observation, the present writ petition is filed.

¶33

The petitioner along with the writ petition has filed certain documents which he submits to be copies of the grant made in the name of his father and also old RTC's where the name of the father of the petitioner is found. However, learned AGA upon instructions submits that the same are bogus, forged and concocted. The lis involves disputed question of fact which this Court cannot decide in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to make an enquiry under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:49450 WP No. 56699 of 2017

¶36

short 'the Act') and examine the genuineness or otherwise

¶37

of the claim made by the petitioner. Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by filing necessary revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act. The same shall be done within a period of 30 days from today.

¶40

ii. Upon filing such a revision petition , the Deputy Commissioner shall examine the genuineness of the grant or otherwise and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶42

VMB

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Sri. Maraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Maraiah 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

B Shivaprasad Rai Vs Lawrence Tauro

Sri. M. Lakshmana Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M. Narayana Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Ravikumar D R Vs the State of Karnataka

Archak Shamanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Patha Bhovi Vs State of Karnataka