Karnataka High Court
Smt. Arogya Mery vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1044
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.43279/2017(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. AROGYA MERY,
W/O. KANIKYA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT BETTADASANAPURA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D. J. GOVINDARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2
TO RESTORE THE REVENUE RECORDS BY CONTINUING THE
RECORD OF RIGHTS/RTC OF THE LAND BEARING SY. No.81,
MEASURING 2-00 ACRE, SITUATED AT AVITTASANDRA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER AS PER MUTATION ORDER VIZ., MR. No.6/1988-89
AT ANNEXURE-C ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent - Tahasildar to restore the revenue records by continuing the record of rights/RTC of the land bearing Sy.No.81, measuring 2-00 Acres, situated at Vittasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk in the name of the petitioner as per mutation order - M.R. No.6/1988-89 vide Annexure-C.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been granted the land bearing Sy.No.81, measuring 2-00 acres, 3 situated at Vittasandra village, Begur hobli, Bengaluru south taluk, by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore urban district in LND(3) 217/78-79 dated 14.2.1979 as per Annexure-A. Based on the grant, the revenue authorities accepted the mutation in the name of the petitioner in M.R. No.6/88-89 as per Annexure-C. Based on the grant, the entries were made in the name of the petitioner in the RTC for the years from 1978-79 till 2000-01.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that subsequent to introduction of computerized revenue entries/RTC, the name of the petitioner was left out in the RTC from the year 2000-01 onwards. However, the name of the other similar grantees under the same grant order have been shown in the computerized RTC till this date. Therefore, the petitioner made representation to the 2nd respondent on 21.3.2017 as per Annexure-E to restore the revenue entries of the schedule land in the name of the petitioner based on 4 the accepted Mutation - M.R. No.6/88-89. Inspite of the same, the 2nd respondent has not considered the representation to restore the revenue entries in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri D.J. Govindaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, has contended that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question by virtue of the grant made by the Deputy Commissioner in LND(3) 217/78-79 dated 14.2.1979. Recognising the grant, the revenue authorities entered the name of the petitioner in the RTC from 1978-79 till 2000-01. The revenue authorities accepted the mutation in the name of the petitioner in M.R. No.6/88-89. 5 When things stood thus, subsequent to introduction of computerized revenue entries/RTC, the petitioner's name was left out in the RTC from 2000-01 onwards. Though the petitioner made representation on 21.3.2017 to restore the entries, till today, the Tahasildar has not taken any action nor considered and passed appropriate orders. Hence, the petitioner is unnecessarily driven before this Court because of the mistake committed by the revenue authorities. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned AGA submits that the 2nd respondent - Tahasildar will consider the representation dated 21.3.2017, if not already considered and dispose off the same in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks.
7. The said submission is placed on record. 6
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the property in question was granted to him by the Deputy Commissioner on 14.2.1979 in LND(3) 217/78-79. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of the grant, the jurisdictional revenue authorities accepted the mutation in M.R. No.6/88-89 as per Annexure-C. It is also not in dispute that the revenue authorities entered the name of the petitioner in the RTC from 1978-79 till 2000-01 as per Annexure-D series. According to the petitioner, subsequent to introduction of computerization of revenue entries/RTC, the name of the petitioner was left out in the RTC from 2000-01 onwards. If the petitioner's name was continued in the RTC from 1978-79 till 2000-01 on the basis of the grant and mutation stated supra, the authorities ought to have continued the name of the petitioner even in the computerized RTC and other revenue records. The same has not been done by the authorities themselves. Therefore, the petitioner made 7 representation as long back as on 21.3.2017. The Tahsildar ought to have considered the representation and passed appropriate orders within a reasonable period. The same has not been done. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a statutory enforceable right to issue writ of mandamus.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the 2nd respondent - Tahasildar to consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure-E dated 21.3.2017 for restoration of the revenue entries in respect of Sy.No.81, measuring 2 Acres, situated at Vittasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk in the name of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case and it is 8 for the 2nd respondent - Tahasildar to consider the representation on the basis of the original records and documents produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-