Sri M Nataraj vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M Nataraj vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2022

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                          1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                      BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.20443 OF 2022(KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M NATARAJ,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO 147, CART STREET,
KADUGODI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI ,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 067.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   REPT BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
   REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING ,
   AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. TECHNICAL ASSITANT TO THE
   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EX OFFICIO
   OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS ,
   DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
   4TH FLOOR, K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
   K R PURAM, TALUK OFFICE,
   BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
   BANGALORE - 560 036.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)
                              2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO R-3 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNX-A DTD 30.05.2022 FOR
CONDUCTING PHODI AND DHURASTHI AS PER THE TERMS OF
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN DDLR APPEAL
NO.129/2019-20, DTD 30.08.2021, IN RESPECT OF
SY.NO.182, MEASURING 2 ACRE 13 GUNTAS, SITUATED
KADUGODI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST
TALUK.

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

                           ORDER

The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to non- implementation of the DDLR's order dated 30.08.2021 though a representation in that regard was made on 30.05.2022 (Annexure-A). Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that our system operates on the rule of hierarchy of officials and therefore once there is a direction by the DDLR the subordinates namely, the ADLR has to implement the same. This having not happened, Petitioner is before this court invoking Writ jurisdiction, argues he.

2. Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents opposes the Petition contending that 3 ordinarily directors of the higher officers should be obeyed by the lower rank official in terms of such directors being statutory orders is true; however at times, these orders are put in appeal and stay orders are also obtained; this not being the case here, there would not be any difficulty for considering Petitioner's representation in accordance with law and in a time bound way.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to direct the Respondent - ADLR to implement DDLR's order dated 30.08.2021 and effect the Hissa, Phodi & Durasth work as sought for in the representation. However, this is subject to any orders which would come in the way of implementation of the said order.

Ordered accordingly and petition stands disposed off.

It is open to the answering Respondent to solicit any information/documents from the side of the Petitioner for considering the subject Representation. However, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked.

Now, no costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Bsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court