IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. N. SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.287 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SRI M. SUBRAMANYA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A SHETTIGERE VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU (BY SRI. H. C. SUNDARESHAN, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560002 3. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK YELAHANAK BANGALORE - 560063 (BY SRI. VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR DATED 12.03.2017, 08.07.2017, 06.03.2018, 12.07.2018 AND 04.10.2018 AS ANNEXURE- C, D, E, F AND Q RESPECTIVELY TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS SUCH AS RTC AND MUTATION EXTRACTS IN RESPECT OF 1.00 ACRES OF LAND IN SY.NO.80 OF SHETTIGERE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, AS PER THE GRANT CERTIFICATE AND SAGUVALI CHIT ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR AND ALSO AS PER THE DARKASTH REGISTRAR MAINTAINED BY THE TAHASILDAR IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. He is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks.
2. The petitioner herein is seeking direction to respondent No.3 to consider his representations dated 12.03.2017, 08.07.2017, 06.03.2018, 12.07.2018 and 04.10.2018 vide Annexures – C, D, E, F and G, respectively, to consider in entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue records as well as the RTC of land bearing Sy.No.80 of Shettigere Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring to an extent of one acre.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate would bring to the notice of this Court that the said land is already converted from agricultural to non- agricultural residential use, vide order of Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division dated 04.11.1991 in proceedings No.ALN.SR.128/90-91. Therefore, the question of entering petitioner’s name in the revenue records and RTC with reference to a converted land, does not arise. Accordingly, he would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable.
4. Having given careful consideration and on going through the materials available on record, this Court is convinced that the petitioner having got the said land converted, cannot seek his name to be entered in the revenue records maintained in respect of the aforesaid land.
5. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Judge RD