Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chikkamadegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 14958 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 14958 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHIKKAMADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O. LATE EEREGOWDA @ KULLAPPA,
HANAKADABURU VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA POST,
KODDIHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562 119.
REP. BY HIS POA HOLDER,
Digitally
signed by SRI. PRADEEP DINAKAR BIJUR,
JUANITA S/O. DINAKAR VENKAT BIJUR,
THEJESWINI
Location: AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
HIGH
COURT OF R/AT FLAT NO. 205,
KARNATAKA RENAISSANCE REGALIA,
6TH MAIN ROAD,
15TH CROSS ROAD,
NEAR MALLESHWARAM MARUTHI
SUZUKI SHOW ROOM,
MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BANGALORE-560 055.
2. SMT. B. K. GAYATHRI DEVI
W/O. LATE K. S. SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 202 B,
1ST FLOOR, NO.73,
SCARLET BEGONIAS,
15TH CROSS ROAD,
-2-
WP No. 14958 of 2022
100 FEET ROAD, J.P. NAGAR,
3RD STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE-560 078.
3. SRI. PRADEEP DINAKAR BIJUR
S/O. DINAKAR VENKAT BIJUR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 205,
RENAISSANCE REGALIA,
6TH MAIN ROAD,
15TH CROSS ROAD,
NEAR MALLESHWARAM MARUTHI
SUZUKI SHOW ROOM,
MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BANGALORE-560 055.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. B V VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA-562 159.
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
NADA KACHERI,
KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
KODDIHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562 119.
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562 159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA S HONNAPURA, AGA)
-3-
WP No. 14958 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3
AND 4 TO CORRECT THE 11E SKETCH PERTAINING TO LAND IN
SY.NO.87/2 AS 0.3.00 GUNTAS AS AGAINST 0.3.12 GUNTAS
SHOWN IN THE SAID SKETCH AT ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that when the petitioners sought for a correction in the 11E sketch which was prepared at the instance of the petitioners as found at Annexure-F series dated 16.02.2022 and a further prayer is made by the petitioners to extend the validity period of the 11E sketch prepared at Annexure-F series by additional six months from the date of correction of 11E sketch, no orders are passed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 is the owner of Sy.No.87/2 measuring 14.12 guntas and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the owners of -4- WP No. 14958 of 2022 Sy.No.102, both situated at Hanakadaburu village, Koddihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District. Petitioners No.2 and 3 have entered into an agreement with petitioner No.1 to purchase an extend of 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.87/2 and similarly they have entered into an agreement in respect of Sy.No.88/2 and 88/4, in order to acquire these pieces of properties to create an access to their property bearing Sy.No.102. In this regard, as required by law, the petitioners got 11E sketch prepared at the hands of the Licensed Surveyor and the same was approved by the Tahsildar, Kanakapura Taluk as found at Annexure-F series. Nevertheless, it is now found that there is a mistake in the 11E sketch insofar as the Sy.No.87/2 is concerned. The mistake is, as per the agreement, the parties intended to transfer 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.87/2 and the instructions given to the Licensed Surveyor was also to prepare a sketch accordingly. However, it is found in the 11E sketch approved by the Tahsildar that instead of 3 guntas it is -5- WP No. 14958 of 2022 shown as 3.12 guntas. Having found this discrepancy, the petitioners once again gave a representation to respondents No.3 and 4, the Deputy Tahsildar, Kanakapura Taluk and Additional Director of Land Records, kanakapura Taluk, seeking rectification of 11E sketch.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that although no endorsement has been issued by the respondent-authorities, nevertheless, it was orally brought to their notice that there is a validity period prescribed in the 11E sketch and the 11E sketch approved by the Tahsildar was valid till 19.07.2022 and therefore corrections cannot be made. It was also brought to the notice of the petitioners that in terms of the communication dated 12.11.2021, made by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue to the Commissioner, Survey Settlement, Bengaluru, in terms of Section 108 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, there shall not be sub-division of an agricultural land to less than 5 guntas. -6- WP No. 14958 of 2022
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the writ petition is premature, in as much as, the representation dated 30.06.2022 is given by the petitioners seeking correction of 11E sketch and no endorsement has been issued by respondents No.3 and 4 declining to consider the representation given by the petitioners. Moreover, the question of applicability of the communication dated 12.11.20211 made by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue to the Commissioner of Survey settlement and Circular dated 23.12.2021 would arise only if the respondent authorities consider and reject the representation given by the petitioners.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers this court finds that the communication dated 12.11.2021 made by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue to the Commissioner, Survey Settlement, Bengaluru, is with reference to Section 108 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. On going -7- WP No. 14958 of 2022 through Section 108, this Court finds that the intent of the provision is to ensure that the lands which are used for agriculture purpose should not be permitted to be sub- divided to lesser than the minimum extent fixed from time to time for several classes of lands in each Districts by the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records with the sanction of the State Government. This is not a case where the land that is sought to be transferred from petitioner No.1 to petitioners No.2 and 3, is to be used for agricultural purpose. It is the intention of the parties to have an access to the agriculture land. Therefore, going by the provisions contained in Section 108, this is not a case that would fall within teeth of Section 108.
7. Insofar as the other contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is concerned, i.e., a condition of validity of the 11E sketch prepared by the Licensed Surveyor and approved by the Tahsildar is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate, there is no such endorsement issued by -8- WP No. 14958 of 2022 respondents No.3 and 4, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. Going by the provisions contained in Clause (iii) of Section 131, it does not prescribed any period of validity for the 11E sketch prepared by the Licensed Surveyor and approved by the Tahsildar. Nevertheless, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents No.3 and 4 are required to consider the representation dated 30.06.2022 given by the petitioners for correction of 11E sketch.
8. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondents No.3 and 4 to consider the representation dated 30.06.2022 given by the petitioners at Annexure-H and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL