Sri.M.K.Putta Boregowda Vs State of Karnataka

SRI.M.K.PUTTA BOREGOWDA S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, LICENSED SURVEYOR, R/AT MANIKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶10

SRI ASHWATHNARAYANA N.V., S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE, CHANNASAGARA POST, PURAVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. PRASANNA H.S., S/O SURESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT HEBBALU VILLAGE, SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:260 WP No. 18409 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

5^TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, K R CIRCLE,

¶22

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, K R CIRCLE,

¶24

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶25

THE PRINCIPAL LAND SURVEY TRAINING INSTITUTE, HADAJANA, MYSURU - 571 311.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

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

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE R-4 RELATING TO THE CONDUCTING OF THE TRAINING AND THE EXAMINATION, VALUATION OF ANSWER PAPERS AND GRANT OF MARKS TO DIFFERENT SURVEYORS PERUSE THE SAME HEAR THE PARTIES AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS TO THE PETITIONERS AS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS. TO DECLARE THAT THE RESULTS ANNOUNCED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE RESULT SHEET DATED 19.10.2022 BEARING No.SSLR/PMU/LS/LS-027/15-16 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IS BEREFT OF ANY REASONING TO CONDUCT TRAINING AND EXAMINATION TO THE PETITIONERS WHO HAVE PUT IN MORE THAN 21 YEARS AS LICENSED SURVEYORS AND CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:260 WP No. 18409 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶36

"A) To declare that the results announced by the 4th respondent as per the result sheet dated 19.10.2022 Bearing No.SSLR/PMU/LS/LS-027/1516 as per Annexure-A is bereft of any reasoning to conduct training and examination to the petitioners who have put in more than 21 years as licensed surveyors and consequently to quash the same as illegal.

¶37

B) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the show-cause notice bearing No.SSLR:PMU:13011/120/2021 dated 13.06.2023 and the communication bearing No. sum.tum./PaBu. Pu.Ta 09/2023-24 dated 03.07.2023 both issued by the 4th respondent as without authority in law and is contrary to the scheme under section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, read in conjunction with Rule 46-A and Rule 46-B of the Rules, 1966 produced at Annexures B & C1 to C3 respectively;

¶38

C) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 14.11.2022 as per Annexure-F and consequently, to direct the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to revoke the suspension of license of the petitioners and to permit them to work as licensed surveyors assigning them the work as licensed surveyors as has been assigned to them prior to the revocation of their respective licenses with login facility".

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:260 WP No. 18409 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Petitioners herein had earlier attended the technical competency test/examination conducted by Mysore Division and their results were announced declaring them to have failed. Grievance of the petitioners is that in the similar test conducted by the Kalaburagi Division, though the candidates who had appeared therein had scored lesser marks than the petitioners, such candidates were declared to have passed the test. It is this disparity which is put in question.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners point out that no separate standards were prescribed for the examinations to be conducted by different divisions. However, there is a discrimination in announcing the results.

¶44

Learned AGA submits that there is no discrimination in assessment or in the allotment of marks between Mysore and Kalaburagi Division. In that view of the matter, petitioners are required to attend the training.

¶45

Learned AGA on instruction submits that if petitioners makes a fresh representation seeking permission/liberty to take up the training as proposed in Annexure-B, they would be provided an opportunity.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:260 WP No. 18409 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that petitioners

¶50

have no difficulty in undertaking the training. However, he insists that the respondent-authority be directed to make their stand clear that there was no discrimination or different yardstick adopted in respect of Kalaburagi division in assessment and allotment of marks.

¶51

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, petition is disposed of with following directions:

¶52

(i) Petitioners are at liberty to make necessary representation in this regard within a period of fifteen(15) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶53

(ii) Respondent authorities are directed to clarify if different yardstick/standard was adopted for assessment and allotment of marks between Mysore and Kalaburagi division as contended by the petitioners. That if a different yardstick/standard was indeed adopted, between Mysore Division and the Kalaburagi Division and if the petitioners are found to be eligible for such yardstick/standard, benefit of the

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:260 WP No. 18409 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

same be accorded to the petitioners. If not, petitioners shall undertake training as submitted. In that event, the respondent authority shall fix the date and venue for training to be undertaken by the petitioners and intimate the same in writing to the petitioners.

¶58

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶59

SBN

¶60

List No.: 1

Sri.M.K.Putta Boregowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M.K.Putta Boregowda 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kushappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi Vs Pandappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi Deceased by His Legal Heirs Smt Shekavva W/O Pandappa Nalavadi

Smt. Geetha Vs Sri. Yellappa

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Nyatha Reddy

Kumbara Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Suprith Gowda H.R Vs the Managing Director

Basareddy Vs State of Karnataka