Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinay Saraogi vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2014
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WP No.11303/2014(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI VINAY SARAOGI
S/O MURALI LAL SARAOGI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.702, TEJESH APARTMENTS
SOUTH END ROAD
KUMARA PARK EAST
BANGLAORE-560 001 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KUMAR J.C., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUIDLING
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-9
3. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
ANEKAL-570 084 ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA)
-2-
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM
THE FILE OF R3 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.7.2013 FOR
MAKING PHODI & DURASTH AS PER ANN-A & R3, MAY BE
DIRECTED TO MAKE PHODI & DURASTH IN RESPECT OF THE
LAND IN QUESTION.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought a direction to the third respondent - Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal, to consider his representation dated 16/07/2013 (Annexure "A"), with regard to 'phodi and durast work' in respect of land bearing Sy.No.90 (new Sy.No.90/P12), measuring 10 Acres situated in Kallubalu Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally the aforesaid land was granted in favour of one Appurao, son of Gopalaiah, in the year 1951-52. That the said Appurao sold the land in favour of Sri.Baiyanna, under registered sale deed dated 17.10.1958, registered as document No.2261/1958-59. The petitioner submits that said -3- Baiyanna sold the land in favour of M.Thandoni Rao, s/o Madhavarayachar under registered sale deed dated 20.10.1983, which was registered as document No.1050/1983-84. It is further submitted that after purchase of the land in question by M.Thandoni Rao, he died and khatha and revenue entries were transferred in favour of his legal heirs (Hanumantha Rao, Narayana Rao, Ramarao and Dharmoji Rao) under IHC 12/1995-96. The legal heirs of M.Thandoni Rao, sold the land in favour of petitioner under registered sale deed dated 8.2.1996, which was registered as document No.7287/1995-96 for a valuable sale consideration. It is further averred that, after purchase of the land the Khatha and revenue entries were transferred in the name of petitioner under M.R No.32/1996-97 and petitioner's name appeared both in column No.9 & 12(2) of the RTC and the petitioner has paid up-to-date tax and is in lawful possession and enjoyment of land. The petitioner submits that, he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of -4- the land and he has acquired the same by virtue of registered sale deed. Petitioner states that with regard to grant of the land in question being made to petitioner's predecessor in title, proceedings were initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and notice was issued to the petitioner in order to verify the revenue entries as well as original records. On receiving notice issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, petitioner appeared in RRT Case No:RRT:CR:01:2012-13 and produced the records pertaining to the land in question. The Special Deputy Commissioner after verifying the records dropped the proceedings initiated under 136(3) and confirmed the land in favor of petitioner by order dated 14.06.2012.
3. It is further case of petitioner that he made a representation to third respondent-Tahsildar, for change of entries in the Revenue Records by entering his name and for taking steps for durast and phodi work in respect -5- of the said land. The said representation has not yet been considered by 3rd respondent Tahsildar. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of 3rd respondent in not considering the representation filed by the petitioner dated 16.07.2013, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court seeking a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record.
5. Having regard to the fact that petitioner's representation has not been considered for a year, a direction is issued to the third respondent or the competent authority to consider the representation in accordance with law, for the purpose of carrying out phodi and durast work in respect of the aforesaid land, in an expeditious manner, within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. -6-
6. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.