P Govinda Reddy vs The Deputy Commissioner on 26 June, 2014

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

P Govinda Reddy vs The Deputy Commissioner on 26 June, 2014

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

                            -1-

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

           DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014

                        : BEFORE :


         THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

        WRIT PETITION NO.29618/2014 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

P.GOVINDA REDDY
S/O.VENKATA REDDY, 50 YEARS,
R/AT POLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-570 140.                   ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: SANJAY GOWDA.N.S., ADV.)

AND:

1.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
TUMKUR-570 140.

2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION,
MADHUGIRI-570 140.

3.THE THASILDAR,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
MADHUGIRI-570 140.                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: KIRAN KUMAR.T.L., AGA)


      THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 4.3.2014 VIDE ANN-B, TO RESTORE THE
LAND BEARING SY.NO.119 OF POLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KOGIENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE R-2 AND R-3 VIDE ANN-A.
                                    -2-

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                               ORDER

Petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 04/03/2014 (Annexure-B), so as to restore land bearing Sy.No.119 of Polenahalli Village, Kogienahalli Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District, as per the recommendation made by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Madugiri Sub-Division, Madugiri, dated 13/06/2013 (Annexure-A).

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the aforesaid land was purchased by the grand-father of the petitioner from one Sri.V.Narasappa under a registered sale deed dated 01/02/1950. Thereafter, his name was entered in the revenue records. But in the year 1966-67, the land was classified as 'phada', though no mutation entry to that effect was made in the revenue records. That classification has been continued since then. On 08/2/2012, the petitioner and his brother submitted a representation to the third respondent seeking deletion of the classification of the land as 'phada' and to restore the land in their favour. On an enquiry being held, the -3- recommendation at Annexure-A dated 13/06/2013 was made by the second respondent requesting the first respondent to delete the classification as 'phada' and to restore it in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 04/03/2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the representation has not yet been considered. In the circumstances, a direction is sought in this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondents and perused the material on record.

4. Having regard to the fact that Annexure-A, which is a recommendation made by the Assistant Commissioner and a request made to the Deputy Commissioner is dated 13/06/2013 and thereafter, reminders and representation made by the petitioner have not yet been considered, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner in light of the communication dated 13/06/2013 and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. -4-

5. With the aforesaid said observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE S*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court