IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.32942/2018(KLR-REG) BETWEEN K H THIMMARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI KANNAMANGALA, KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110 ... PETITIONER (BY SMT R.SHAMA, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE THASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-562110 3. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UN AUTHORIZED OCCUPATION DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110 REP BY IT’S SERETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM No.50 DATED 22.06.1991 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is seeking direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider his application in Form No.50, which is dated 22.06.1991, vide Annexure ‘A’ to the writ petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in unauthorized cultivation and possession of the land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres in Sy. No.66 situate at Kempathimmanahalli village, kasaba hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. It is stated that his father was cultivating the land during his lifetime and after his death, the petitioner continued in possession and cultivation of the said land. It is the further case of the petitioner that he filed application in Form No.50 seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation and possession of the said land before the second respondent – Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has not taken any action on his application.
3. During the pendency of this petition, Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk, has issued endorsement dated 15.03.2019 to the petitioner stating that on verification of the documents with reference to the petitioner’s application in Form No.50 seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation in respect of land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre (stated as 02 Acres in Form No.50) in Sy. No.66, the details of petitioner’s application were entered at Sl. No.4A/1991-92, which entry apparently had been inserted in the register and hence, the said land could not be granted in his favour.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the material on record.
5. When this matter had come up for consideration earlier, this Court had directed learned Additional Government Advocate to secure the book / register containing the details of applications received in Form No.50 in respect of Kempathimmanahalli, Devanahalli Taluk. Today, Sri B.R.Manjunath, Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk, is present before this Court and he has produced the said book.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate while producing the said book tried to bring to the notice of this Court that there is some discrepancy with regard to registering the particulars of petitioner’s application in the said book. When the said book is looked into, it is seen that at page No.53 on the left side of the book, the details of applications in Form No.50 received by the office of Tahasildar in respect of the land in Sy. No.66 were recorded at Sl. Nos.1/91-92 to 7/91-92. Page No.54 on the right side of the said book is blank and backside of it is No.55. In the said page No.55 on the left side of the book, details of applications in Form No.50 are recorded at Sl. Nos.8/91-92 to 15/91-92 and page No.56 on the right side is blank. Page No.57 contains details of applications in Form No.50 received by the said office as per entries at Sl. Nos.16/91-92 to 24/91-92 and page No.58 is blank. It is seen that between page Nos.53 and 54 of the said book, one extra page is inserted. Page No.53 contains details of applications as per Sl. No.1/91-92 to 7/91-
92 whereas the inserted page indicates that there are eight entries and details with reference to petitioner’s application is recorded at Sl. No.4A/91-92. When the entire register is looked into, it clearly shows that the page in which the petitioner’s name and other seven names are recorded has been inserted into the main book and the said page has been stapled to page No.54 to show that it is continuation of page No.53. In this background, it is clearly seen that the application in Form No.50 as contended by the petitioner having been filed on 22.06.1991 is not forthcoming in the records. It is in this background, the endorsement bearing No.LND.CR:10/2018-19 dated 15.03.2019 is issued by Tahasildar, Devanahalli to the petitioner. In the fact situation, the said endorsement appears to be just and proper.
7. In that view of the matter, the question of considering the prayer of the petitioner for issue of writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as sought for in this petition does not arise.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma