IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.6985/2017 & W.P.Nos.11749-751/2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO 9, EX SERVICE MAN LAYOUT, NEAR HOSAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE – 560062. ... PETITIONER (By Sri VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE TAHASILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT RAMANAGARA – 571511.
3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT RAMANAGARA – 571511. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1-R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DT:5.11.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
2. Petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus against the respondents to consider the representation submitted by him on 05.11.2014 as per Annexure-H.
3. In Annexure-H – representation, it is urged by the petitioner that in respect of several lands situated at Karenahalli village of Ramanagara Taluk, as many as six persons have created false documents of title and have got their names entered in respect of lands which were allegedly granted in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, requested the revenue authorities to cancel the entries in the name of the said six persons and enter the names of the legal representatives of the grantee. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this representation addressed to the Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, had not been considered, and therefore, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate points out that the representation submitted to cancel the khatha entered in the names of third parties could not be considered by the Tahsildar, as he has no such power or authority. In addition, it is rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate that none of those khathedars have been impleaded as party respondents in this proceedings.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that this writ petition is misconceived. Petitioner cannot seek such a direction against the Tahsildar. Khatha and revenue entries effected in the name of third parties cannot be cancelled by the Tahsildar based on a representation given by the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE KK