Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 17131 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 17131 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMAIAH
S/O LATE ABBAIAH
AGED 72 YEARS
R/AT NO. 137/A
NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE,
PATTANAGERE
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by JUANITA (BY SRI. C PRAKASH., ADVOCATE AND
THEJESWINI SRI. G.R. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009
-2-
WP No. 17131 of 2021
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT / ORDER DATED 27/30.04.2021 ISSUED BY
THE R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE
R4 TO CONDUCT THE SURVEY AND PHODI IN RESPECT OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 2 (TWO ACRES) IN
SY.NO.11 OF PATTANAGERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER, AS DETAILED N THE SCHEDULE TO THIS WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 17131 of 2021
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner who is a Senior citizen is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned endorsement dated 27/30.04.2021 at Annexure 'A' issued by the respondent- Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, declining to conduct the phodi and durasth work fixing the boundaries of the land belonging to the petitioner in Sy.No.11 measuring 2 acres situated at Pattanagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that during the year 1981, he filed application seeking grant of the land in question. It is also contended that notices were issued to the neighbours for considering the application filed at hands of the petitioner who had sought for grant.
3. The petitioner had also filed an application in Form No.50 seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation of the land in question. When the application was not -4- WP No. 17131 of 2021 considered and no orders were passed, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.Nos.3574-3575/1996 along with another applicant and this Court by order dated 17.07.1998 directed the Committee for regularisation of unauthorized to dispose of the application and pass necessary orders. When the said directions were not complied with, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in CCC No.19/2001 which was clubbed with other contempt petitions and the Hon'ble Division Bench placed on record the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Committee shall pass necessary orders within a period of three months and accordingly, the contempt proceedings were disposed of granting liberty to the complainants to revive the petitions in the event the respondents do not comply with the directions issued by the Court.
4. The petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.94/2003 seeking a declaration that he has perfected his title and ownership and also sought for a decree of permanent -5- WP No. 17131 of 2021 injunction against the defendants who were the State and the revenue authorities. The Civil Court passed a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner on 29.08.2003 declaring that the petitioner had perfected his title and ownership in respect of the land in question and further the defendants were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the land in question which was enjoyed at the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.16990/2008 and this Court by order dated 26.06.2009 directed the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in the land records in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. Learned Counsel submits that the name of the petitioner was entered in the land records accordingly. The petitioner has been seeking phodi and durasth of the land in question from the year 2010.
5. A writ petition in W.P.No.5380/2010 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the revenue and survey authorities to consider the request of the petitioner -6- WP No. 17131 of 2021 to conduct a survey and phodi in respect of the land in question. This Court by order dated 05.03.2010 directed the revenue and survey authorities to conduct survey and phodi within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Thereafter, notice was issued by the Taluka Surveyor on 21.10.2010 to the petitioner as well as the neighbours to conduct the survey and phodi.
But, nothing further happened. Therefore, the petitioner had to once again approach this Court in
W.P.No.16827/2018. This Court by order date 26.04.2018 held that there has been several successive directions issued by this Court for conducting survey and phodi in respect of the land in question which have not been complied by the respondent-authorities, more particularly, the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. Therefore, once again a direction was issued to the Tahsildar as well as the Additional Director of Land Records that the survey and phodi work shall be conducted within a period of four -7- WP No. 17131 of 2021 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
6. The Tahsildar and the respondent-State approached the Hon'ble Division Bench in an intra-Court appeal in W.A.No.3255/2018. The Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 10.02.2021 permitted the petitioner herein to file necessary application along with all the relevant documents within a period of four weeks and the revenue authorities were required to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar, instead of complying with the directions issued by this Court has issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure 'A' declining to conduct phodi and durasth work on the ground that a Miscellaneous Petition was filed to revive the original suit in which the petitioner had obtained a judgment and decree and therefore, since the Miscellaneous Petition was pending consideration, the phodi and durasth work cannot be carried out.
-8-WP No. 17131 of 2021
7. Learned Counsel has furnished a copy of an order passed by the regular appellate Court in R.A.No.84/2021 filed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk and the State of Karnataka, challenging the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner in O.S.No.94/2003 dated 29.08.2003. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal while declining to condone the delay of 6658 days in filing the appeal. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that directions are required to be issued to the respondent-Tahsildar, to conduct the phodi and durasth within a timeframe.
8. Having regard to the fact that the respondent- State and the Tahsildar were unsuccessful even before the regular appellate court in getting the judgment and decree set aside, it would now become incumbent upon the respondent-Tasildar as well as the Assistant Director of Land Records who are the revenue and survey authorities to conduct phodi and durasth work. No excuses in this -9- WP No. 17131 of 2021 regard shall be entertained at the hands of the respondent-authorities.
9. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, and the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bangalore South Taluk, to proceed to conduct the phodi and durasth work in respect of the land in question 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, failing which, the Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bangalore South Taluk, shall not only be held liable for contempt, they shall also be liable to pay exorbitant costs, if there is any failure to carry out the directions issued by this Court.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-