IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.15126/2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND WRIT PETITION NOS.15453-15454/2019 BETWEEN:
MR.PILLA REDDY, S/O LATE RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT ARENURU VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.NATARAJ, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDHAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 102. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22.05.2017 AND 25.10.2017 VIDE ANNEXURES – A AND B, ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner herein is seeking a writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to consider his representations submitted on 22.05.2017 and 25.10.2017 vide Annexures – A and B, wherein it is contended that the land bearing Sy. No.96/1, 96/2 and 96/3, to an extent of 4 acres and 21 guntas situated at Arenuru Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk should be registered in the name of the petitioner in revenue records and khata also should be issued in his name.
2. In these proceedings, when original records are summoned through the Tahsildar of Anekal, the learned Additional Government Advocate who has secured the records and placed them before the Court would bring to the notice of the Court, that though the grant was made in favour of the petitioner’s father in the year 1944 subsequently, through the proceedings before the Revenue Commissioner in Appeal No.272/45-46, an order is passed on 10.05.1947 cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioner’s father which is recorded in ‘index of lands’ and the learned counsel for the State would also submit that the entire file pertaining to proceedings No.272/45-46 is missing. Thereafter there is a proceedings in conducting phodi of aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner’s father.
3. In this background, this Court is not in a position to accept the genuineness of the prayer of the petitioner. At the same time, this Court is also not clear as to whether the proceedings before the Revenue Commissioner in the year 1945-46 has taken place as stated. The possibility of petitioner’s father joining hands with authorities in removing the file and getting phodi work done in his name in the year 1947 cannot be ruled out. At the same time, the possibility of revenue officials deliberately misplacing the record also cannot be ruled out. The same are required to be ascertained after conducting a thorough enquiry.
4. Hence, by dismissing these writ petitions, the petitioner is reserved liberty to approach the authorities challenging the endorsement which is issued to him on 11.04.2019 in proceedings No.RRT CR/163/17-18 from the Office of the Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk, copy of which is already on record.
5. Sri C. Mahadevaiah, the Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk who is present before the Court shall affix his signature in the Order Sheet of these petitions in confirmation of the fact that he has produced the original records summoned by this Court, copy of which is placed in these petitions.
sac* Sd/- JUDGE