IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.43694 OF 2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN :
C. SUBRAMANI S/O V. CHIDAMBARAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 8TH MAIN ROAD, MUTHYAL NAGAR BANGALORE-54 … PETITIONER (BY SMT. O.ASHWINI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. R. BELE, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-1 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 3. THE TAHSILDAR TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR GULUR HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT BEHIND RTO OFFICE TUMKUR – 572 101 6. TALUK GOVERNMENT SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE MINI VIDHANASOWDHA (D.C. OFFICE BUILDING) TUMKUR – 572 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE PASSED BY THE R-3 DATED 01.10.2012, AS PER ANNEXURE-A OF THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Smt. O.Ashwini, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for the State.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that revenue entries in respect of land measuring 2 Acres and 5 guntas in Sy.No.79/11 situated in Guluru Village & Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk were in petitioner’s name prior to 2012. On 17.07.2012, vide MR.No.T9/2012-13, petitioner’s name has been removed and the land is shown as belonging to the Government. Petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No.RRT/97/2012-13 (Annexure-G). The same is not considered as on date.
3. She further submitted that though several representations have been submitted to the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal, the same are not considered. Hence, petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
4. Learned AGA submitted that petitioner’s request will be considered in accordance with law, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. However, keeping in view the fact that appeal is of the year 2012 and respondents are State and its officials, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.
No opinion is expressed regarding claim made by the petitioner.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV