IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.15554/2019(LR) BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. MOTAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
2 . LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
3 . BATHYAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF APPASANDRA VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114.
(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION F THE PETITIONERS DATED 12.03.2019 VIDE ANNX-F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Kaleemullah Shariff, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents and matter is disposed of by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, though listed for preliminary hearing.
2. Petitioners claim that land bearing Sy.No.29/1 measuring 7 Acres of Appasandra Village, Jadagenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District was originally an inam land and 4 Acres 38 guntas of land was cultivated by petitioners father. He is said to have filed an application for grant of said land by submitting an application in Form No.7A and during pendency of said application, applicant expired and as such his wife namely mother of the petitioners was brought on record and she was granted land measuring 4 Acres 38 guntas by order dated 26.06.2013 vide Annexure-B. Second respondent issued certificate of registration in Form No.11-CCC vide Annexure-C pursuant to which the revenue records came to be mutated in respect of subject land in the name of petitioners mother.
3. When this was the factual scenario an application came to be submitted by petitioners to second respondent on 12.03.2019 vide Annexure-F with a prayer to mutate the revenue records of the subject land to their names. Same having not been considered and petitioners are before this Court alleging non- consideration of their representation and they are seeking for a writ of mandamus to second respondent to consider the representation dated 12.03.2019- vide Annexure-F.
4. Sri.Kaleemullah Shariff, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners has reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petition.
5. Having considered the contentions raised by learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and on perusal of averments made, grounds urged in the writ petition as well as representation dated 12.03.2019 it would clearly indicate that there is not even a whisper with regard to the death of their mother Smt.Muniakkaiamma in whose name revenue records have been mutated on the death of original grantee Sri. Muniyappa i.e., father of the petitioners. Question of considering the representation of the petitioners to mutate the revenue records to their names would arise only in the event of petitioners having succeeded to the estate of the deceased Smt.Muniakkaiamma namely on her death and not otherwise. In that view of the matter it would suffice to grant liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to second respondent by enclosing the death certificate of Smt.Muniakkaiamma w/o Muniyappa to enable second respondent to take steps and pass orders in accordance with law. It is needless to state that in the event of petitioners submitting representation afresh, second respondent shall consider the same expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of such representation being submitted. With these observations this writ petition stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE RU