Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 735 (KAR)

VINAY SARAOGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2014-08-15

B.V.NAGARATHNA

body2014
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/P19), measuring 2 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 Govindappa, son of Puttaiah, in the year 1962. That the said Govindappa sold the land in favour of one Liaquat Ali Khan s/o Abdul Rahim Khan, under registered sale deed dated 05.04.1966, registered as document No.40/1966-67. Petitioner submits that said Liaquat Ali Khan sold the land in question through his GPA holder in favour of petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 13.7.2001, which was registered as document No.2205/2001-02 for a valuable sale consideration. It is further averred that, after purchase of the land, the Khatha and revenue entries have been transferred in the name of petitioner under M.R No.33/200001 and petitioner’s name has appeared both in column No.9 & 12(2) of the RTC and the petitioner has paid uptodate tax. Thus the petitioner submits that, he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of 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 from the Special Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner appeared in RRT Case No:RRT:CR:09:2012-13 and produced entire 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 26.06.2012. 3. It is further case of petitioner that petitioner made a representation to third respondent-Tahsildar, for change of entries in the Revenue Records by entering petitioner’s name and for taking steps for durast and phodi work in respect of the said land. The said 3rd representation has not yet been considered by respondent Tahsildar. 3. It is further case of petitioner that petitioner made a representation to third respondent-Tahsildar, for change of entries in the Revenue Records by entering petitioner’s name and for taking steps for durast and phodi work in respect of the said land. The said 3rd representation has not yet been considered by 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 writ of mandamus directing third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. 4. I have heard the 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 the 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. With the aforesaid direction and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.