Shri Muninanjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 17/3/2025, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A, WITHIN A TIME BOUND PERIOD, AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for all the respondents.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32278 WP No. 18003 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted land in Sy.No.100 of Kachanayakanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and grant certificate being issued thereof, the name of the petitioner was entered in the land revenue records and the petitioner have been in possession of the land in question. However after computerisation, the name of the petitioner is missing from the land revenue records. In this regard, the petitioner has made a representation to the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal, to re-enter the name of the petitioner in the land revenue records. However, no orders have been passed by the respondentTahsildar till date and therefore the petitioner have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent-Tahsildar to enter the name of the petitioner in the computerised land revenue records.

¶29

After hearing the learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader and

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32278 WP No. 18003 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds from the material on record that the name of the petitioner was earlier entered in the land revenue records. However, if the Tahsildar is of the opinion that the petitioner has not been granted lands, nevertheless, it is the duty of the Tahsildar to secure the original grant records, Saguvali Chit issue register and other contemporaneous records to satisfy himself regarding the grant made in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, there is no reason why the name of

¶34

the petitioner which was earlier entered in the land revenue records has been continued after computerization, the Tahsildar is duty bound to look into all these aspects and pass necessary orders.

¶35

Consequently, this writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the 4^th respondent -Tahsildar to consider the representation given by the petitioner and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, verify the original records and pass necessary orders to enter the name of the petitioner in the

¶36