IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.11072/2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN MAKEGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O MOOKNAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HUNASUR TALUK MYSURU -571 105 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHWATH C M, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570 001 3. THE TAHASILDAR HUNASUR TALUK HUNASUR- 571 105 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN REVENUE RECORDS ON THE BASIS OF GRANT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.1976 (ANNEXURE-C).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner herein is seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct respondents to enter his name in revenue records on the basis of grant order in proceedings No.C.Dis.R2.LND.I.1264/1975-76, dated 27.2.1976, vide Annexure-C.
2. The aforesaid grant order which is an Official Memorandum issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru District would indicate that by the said order an extent of 17 acres 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.7 of Mookanahalli village, Hunsur Taluk, was granted to 4 different persons. It would also indicate that the same is issued pursuant to an order of the Special Assistant Commissioner for disposal of Darkasth land measuring to an extent of 17 acres 22 guntas in proceedings No.Spl.DDR.41/1958-59, dated 11.7.1959 and beneficiaries are referred to at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 in the Official memorandum, where the person who is referred to as Marigowda s/o Kulle Gowda at Sl.No.4 is beneficiary of grant of 4 acres 17 guntas, who is said to be the father of petitioner herein.
3. The petitioner would contend that since the petitioner’s father and 3 other persons were belonging to backward community the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru passed an order for waiver of Kimmat and phode fee pursuant to circulars dated 8.9.1980 and 26.12.1972. He would also submit that pursuant to aforesaid grant order saguvali chit was not issued in favour of his father and there was no progress in registering the land in the name of his father. Therefore, after the death of his father, he has approached the respondent authority seeking registration of aforesaid land in his name.
4. In that behalf, it is seen that, an enquiry was conducted to ascertain whether the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. In the said enquiry in proceedings bearing No.R9KPR 41/1983-84, the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector after inspection would file a report to the extent that so far as 4 acres 17 guntas which was granted in favour of petitioner’s father is concerned, in the year 1973 the petitioner herein who is s/o of original grantee, namely Maregowda has received a sum of Rs.500/- and given portion of the land in question in favour of one Nanjundachari and Basavachari. Subsequently, said Basavachari is said to have received a sum of Rs.300/- from one Channegowda s/o Karigowda and handed over to him some portion of the land which was under his cultivation.
5. With this, according to the Revenue Inspector, 1 acre 24 guntas is in possession of Channegowda, another 1 acre 24 guntas is in possession of Nanjundachari s/o Sannappachari and remaining 1 acre 10 guntas is in possession of petitioner’s wife - Sakamma. In his report, he has also stated that, the petitioner is not residing in the village and that, he has left the village. These documents are made available by the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar when this Court directed him to appear before this Court and explain the reason for not registering the aforesaid extent of 4 acres 17 guntas of land till today in the name of the petitioner or his father Marigowda.
6. In this background, this Court find that question of considering the prayer of the petitioner in directing the respondents to enter his name in the revenue records does not arise. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-