Sri Ramanna @ Ramaiah Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ROOM NO 505, 5TH FLOOR GATE 3 M S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKARVEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32706 WP No. 15444 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BEHIND KANDAYABHAVANA BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE 56009

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 9/1 19TH MAIN RD 2ND STAGE NAGAPURA BANGALORE 560010

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DTD 26.02.2013 IN NO. RK/CR/725/2011-12 VIDE ANNX-F AND RESTORE THE REVENUE RECORDS TO THE NAME OF THE PETITION AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is directed towards the

¶29

unauthorised entry made in column No.11 of the RTC pertaining to Sy.No.56 of Keddathanamalla village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under similar circumstances in WP No.15292/2022, by order dated 06.09.2022 this Court

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32706 WP No. 15444 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

held that since an endorsement has been issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner that no such order dated 26.02.2013 in proceedings bearing No.RK/CR/725/2011-12 was found in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, this Court held that the entry made in column No.11 is unauthorised and therefore directed removal of such endorsement found in Column No.11.

¶33

However, learning AGA points out to Annexure

¶34

in the writ petition where a copy of the said order dated 26.02.2013 in proceedings bearing No.RK/CR/725/201112 is annexed.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

the lands were granted by orders of the committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation on 28.11.1984 pursuant to which saguvali chit was also issued in favour of the grantees and their names were entered in the revenue records. That being the case, without initiating action in accordance with law seeking cancellation of the

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32706 WP No. 15444 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

orders passed by the competent authority, the Deputy Commissioner has simply directed the Tahsildar to remove the names of the petitioners from the revenue records and initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

¶40

4. There is substance in the submission made by

¶41

the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the revenue authorities have maintained the revenue records in the name of the grantee for more than four decades, it is impermissible for the authorities to now contend that there was no grant made in favour of the grantees herein. No proceedings have been initiated in a manner known to law to cancel the grant or to hold that the grants were never made by the competent authority. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the writ petition should succeed.

¶42

5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The

¶43

impugned order at Annexure 'F' dated 26.02.2013 in proceedings bearing No.RK/CR/725/2011-12 is hereby

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32706 WP No. 15444 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

quashed and set aside in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Consequently, the third respondent - Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk and the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner are hereby directed to remove the unauthorised entry made in column No.11. The entry shall be removed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶48

YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri Ramanna @ Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramanna @ Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jitesh B P Vs the Govenment of Karnataka

Smt. Nandini K N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramachandrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. L Kodhandaramu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Venkatalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka