Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.41519/2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
M.K.RAMAPPA S/O. LATE KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MULLUR VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE-560 (BY SRI SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562 107 (BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA) ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DTD.11.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES IN COLUMN 12(2) OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.179 MEASURING 1 ACRE AND 29 GUNTAS AT MUGALURU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK AND TO RETAIN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Srinivas V, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the case papers.
2. This is a classic case where executive lethargy has resulted in preforcing petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. The facts enumerated hereinbelow would be a mirror to this fact.
3. Petitioner has purchased the land bearing old Sy.No.160/P new No.179 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas situated at Mugalur Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2015-Annexure-A. In fact, petitioner having noticed that said land was a land granted to vendors and provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, would be attracted, had requested the vendors to obtain permission from statutory authorities and as such vendors of petitioner had applied for permission and had obtained the same vide order dated 06.09.2014-Annexure-B.
4. Pursuant to same petitioner purchased the land in question and on such purchase revenue records came to be mutated by third respondent in MRH 42/2014-15. Though name of petitioner was reflected in Column No.9 and also in Column No.12(2), names of vendors of petitioner had been continued and as such petitioner submitted a representation to third respondent for deleting their names. By endorsement dated 11.02.2019-Annexure-E third respondent has intimated petitioner that Bhoomi Software would not provide for such deletion. This Court has repeatedly held that if revenue authorities have developed a software for implementation of provisions of the Act for the benefit of public, then such software will have to be necessarily in tune with the provisions of Act or it should be in consonance with the provisions of Act and they cannot be heard to contend that on account of software developed would not provide for granting the prayers or requests of the applicant made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, same would not be entertained. As such this Court has observed hereinabove that this is a classic case where revenue authorities are attempting to avoid and evade from discharging their statutory duty by taking umbrage of technical snag, which is impermissible.
5. When there is a registered sale deed executed by a person in favour of purchaser, then such purchaser would be entitled to under the provisions of Section 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to get the revenue records mutated to his/her name and in fact second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 128 exempts the purchaser from reporting to the prescribed Officer of the application of he/she having purchased the land in question. In other words, it is mandatory on the part of revenue authorities to mutate the revenue records whenever there is an application made in that regard. Though said exercise has been undertaken partially by effecting the mutation entry in the name of petitioner in Column Nos.9 and 12(2) of RTC, still they are continuing the names of petitioner’s vendors in the revenue records. As such, impugned endorsement issued to petitioner for not entertaining his claim for deletion of names of vendors on the ground of software not providing for such deletion, cannot stand test of law and it requires to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Next >