Karnataka High Court
Ratnamma W/O Siddaredy vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 3 June, 2019
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
W.P.No.201343/2015 (KLR-RR-SUR)
Between:
Ratnamma W/o Siddareddy,
Age about 65 years,
Occ: Household and Agriculture,
R/o Honnakeri Taluka and
District Bidar.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Sangoli Naganna &
Sri Namadev B.S., Advocates)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
through its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S. Building, Vidhan Veedhi,
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 01.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bidar - 584 101.
3. The Deputy Conservator of
Forest, Bidar District,
Bidar - 584 101.
2
4. The Tahsildar,
Bidar - 584 101.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Arathi Patil, HCGP)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of certiorari,
or any other writ or order quashing the entry at column
No.11 of Annexure-D, D1, D2, D3, D4, & D5, carried out by
respondents 2 and 4, with respect to the petitioner's land
Sy.No.45/1 measuring 4 acres 38 guntas situated at village
Honnakeri Taluka, Bidar.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the entries made in Column No.11 of Annexures 'D', 'D1', 'D2', 'D3', 'D4' and 'D5' carried out by respondent Nos.2 and 4 without the knowledge of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.45/1 measuring 04 acre 38 guntas pertaining to Honnakeri Taluk, Bidar District and also sought for direction for deletion of the said entries from the year 2010 onwards.
3
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for State and perused the entries in the said survey number wherein the entries have been made on the basis of M.R.No.58/09-10 recording that, over the said land the Forest department has got right and on the basis of the report of the Tahasildar in Memo LSD/108/2009 and also on the basis of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner dated 17.03.2016. It appears that said entries have been made. However, the entries at Column No.9 and 12(1) and (2) have not been disturbed even for the said years. However, the subsequent RTC entries pertaining to the year 2010- 2011 and 2012-2013 which are produced before the court as per Annexures 'D3' and 'D4' the said entries pertaining to Column No.9 and 12(1) and (2) still stands in the name of one Rathnamma W/o Siddareddy (the petitioner).
4
3. The learned counsel submits that said orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahasildar are against the principle of natural justice and they were not notified by the Tahasildar or by the Deputy Commissioner before causing the entries in the RTC extracts.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader has also not brought to the notice of this court whether any notices were issued to the petitioner before making said entry. However, the High Court Government Pleader submits a memo along with gazette notification dated 18.07.1963 on which basis she argued that, the entries have been changed at Column No.11 of the RTC extracts of the said survey number. If at all on the basis of said gazette notification, which is alleged to have been issued in the year 1963 why the Government has not taken any action against the said land till 2009-2010. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Revenue Authorities to issue notices to parties whose names find a place in 5 Annexures 'D', 'D1', 'D2', 'D3', 'D4'and 'D5' and after providing them an opportunity and thereafter the Revenue Authorities would have taken a decision to cause the entries in Column No.11 of the RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.45/1. As there is no material to show any notice have been issued to the petitioner, in my opinion it is just and necessary to direct the concerned Deputy Commissioner who can take action under the revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, with regard to the entries made in the RTC extracts. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby directed to approach the Deputy Commissioner by filing a revision petition against the entries under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. If any such revision is filed without reference to any limitation the Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to entertain the revision petition and after going through the entire materials on record and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner herein and other any 6 necessary parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. The petitioner is hereby directed to present a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such revision is filed the Deputy Commissioner as noted above without insisting for any limitation application has to examine with regard to the entries made in Sy.No.45/1 of Honnakeri Village, Bidar District with regard to entries at Column No.11 and after hearing both the parties the Deputy Commissioner has to pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law.
With these observations petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn Ct: RRJ