Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.39321 OF 2018 (KLR - RES) BETWEEN:
MRS.MARY JOHN, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, D/O LATE K.P.PAUL, W/O LATE JOHN THOMAS, R/AT FLAT NO.004, HEBRON APARTMENTS, NO.57, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 046.
(BY SRI. ARVIND UPADHYA ON BEHALF OF SRI. P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADVS.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, V.V.TOWERS, PHODIUM BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR – 561 205, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3. THE TAHASILDAR, HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE – 562 114.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, ... PETITIONER HOSKOTE – 562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5. THE LAND REGULARIZATION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE TAHASILDAR, HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE – 562 114.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 – R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT PHODING AS THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR TO THE TAHASILDAR AND ASSIGN NEW SY.NO. TO THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER BEARING SY.NO.5/P6 MEASURING 4 ACRES OF HINDIGANALA VILLAGE, NANDGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK IN TERMS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 AND 2 VIDE ANNEXURES E & F AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner having purchased land measuring 4 acres situate in Sy.No.5 of Hindiganala village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote taluk under a registered sale deed dated 05.10.1996 from Smt.Bhagyamma, got the revenue records mutated to her name and has been paying taxes. In the meanwhile, one Sri. Narayanappa and Bhojamma filed an application before the Regularization of Unauthorised Cultivation Committee, Hoskote taluk for regularization of their alleged illegal occupation of the land to an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas and 28 guntas respectively in the said survey number which came to be granted in their favour. Hence, petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent herein since land named by the grantees were overlapping with the lands owned by the petitioner. 2nd respondent herein by order dated 22.04.2006 – Annexure ‘E’ allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the Taluk Committee on the ground that petitioner is in possession of the lands. An appeal came to be filed before the Deputy Commissioner by the aforesaid Narayanappa and Bhojamma in R.A.No.6/2006-07, which came to be allowed in part, by order dated 31.8.2012 – Annexure ‘F’ directing 3rd respondent herein to conduct spot inspection after verifying the factual position and based on the possession and acquisition of the land by conducting spot mahazar and to take appropriate steps in the matter within three (3) months. It is, thereafter, petitioner is said to have submitted several representations to the 3rd respondent herein to implement the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.8.2012 passed in R.A.No.6/2006-07 and the Tahsildar having called for a report from the Revenue Inspector, a report along with mahazar has been submitted on 19.12.2012 stating thereunder that lands claimed by the grantees is different from the land belonging to the petitioner which measures 4 acres. Despite no action having been taken by the Tahsildar, petitioner has submitted a representation on 2.9.2014 Annexure ‘J’ to 3rd respondent inter alia seeking for preparation of a sketch based on actual possession of the land held by the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.8.2012. Petitioner is also said to have submitted one more representation on 5.11.2014. On account of non- consideration of said representations, petitioner is before this Court.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State would support the stand taken by the respondents-authorities, but is not in a position to state as to why the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.8.2012 Annexure ‘F’ is not being taken to its logical end by the 3rd respondent herein.
3. Under order dated 31.8.2012, the exercise which was to be undertaken by the Tahsildar was to conduct spot inspection and drawing mahazar of the land bearing Sy.No.5 by ascertaining the extent of land which petitioner is in possession. This exercise has not been undertaken by the 3rd respondent and as such, this Court is of the considered view that prayer sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition deserves to be granted. Hence, the following:
Next >