Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1235 (KAR)

S. Sumithra v. Deputy Commissioner

2023-10-25

E.S.INDIRESH

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents to consider his representation dtd. 29/9/2020 produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition. 2. Facts of the case are that, the petitioner claims to be the legal representative of late K. Subba Rao. The said K. Subba Rao died on 27/1/1975 (Annexure-B). Respondent- Government has granted 02 acres of land in Sy No.11 of Kyalasanahalli Village, K.r.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, in favour of K. Subba Rao recognizing the service rendered by him as a Freedom Fighter and the order of sanction made by the Government is produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition. Pursuant to the same, the Tahasildar, Bangalore East Taluk has issued Grant Certificate dtd. 29/11/1966 in favour of K Subba Rao in respect of the subject land as per Annexure-F. It is stated in the writ petition that, some of the similarly placed grantee/ legal representatives have approached the jurisdictional Tahasildar to effect the khata in respect of the land granted to the grantees thereunder and in this regard, the petitioner has also approached the respondent No.3, by representation dtd. 29/9/2020 (Annexure-A) and having not considered the same by the respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.S.Venkatesh Gowda along with Sri Harish N.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government. 4. On careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that, land bearing Sy No.11 of Kyalasanahalli village, K.r.Puram Hobli, to an extent of 02 acres, was granted to the father of the petitioner-K.Subba Rao recognizing his contribution during freedom movement as per Annexure-D to the writ petition. Grant Certificate is also issued in the name of said K.Subba Rao as per Annexure-F to the writ petition. It is contended by the Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that, the respondent-authorities have considered the representation made by the legal representative of the original grantees and this court by order dtd. 26/9/2012, in W.P.Nos.4531-33/2012 (Annexure-K) quashed the impugned Endorsement therein and the jurisdictional Tahasildar was directed to enter the name of grantee /successor in the khata in accordance with law. 26/9/2012, in W.P.Nos.4531-33/2012 (Annexure-K) quashed the impugned Endorsement therein and the jurisdictional Tahasildar was directed to enter the name of grantee /successor in the khata in accordance with law. Hence, learned Senior Counsel submitted that similar benefit/relief may be extended to the petitioner herein also. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this court. 5. Per contra, Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government submitted that, the petitioner herein has approached this court in the present writ petition with inordinate delay and on the same ground, the writ petition cannot be considered. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration factual aspects on record, it is not in dispute that, subject land is granted to the father of the petitioner- K. Subba Rao, and therefore, I am of the view that, respondent No.3 herein shall consider the representation dtd. 29/9/2020 (Annexure-A) in accordance with law in the light of the observation made by this court in W.P.Nos.4531-33/2012 decided on 26/9/2012 (Annexure-K) within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.