IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.44561/2017 (KLR–RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE DODDA KADHIREPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT HAROHALLI VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563101 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI D.K.RAVINDRANATH, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECREARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR-563101 4. THE TAHSILDAR KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI H.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT ORDER DATED 21.06.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit ad-idem that the issue involved in these petitions are squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.48070/2017 disposed of on 19.09.2018, whereby this Hon’ble Court in paragraph Nos.5 to 10 and 12 to 14 has observed as follows:
“5. It is contended that the authorities started digitization of the revenue entries and during the course of digitization, the authorities have failed to continue the entries in the digitized form and the name of the petitioner has been omitted. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made representations vide Annexure – B and B1 to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent issued an endorsement dated 29.06.2017 stating that representations cannot be considered in the light of the fact that the records pertaining to the grant have been damaged and that the M.R. entries are not traceable and hence, the entries relating to the petitioner have been dropped at the time of digitization or computerization of the revenue records.
6. The learned HCGP would reiterate the same that the name of the petitioner has been omitted from the revenue records during the period of digitization of the entries as the records relating to the MR numbers pertaining to the petitioner are not traceable in the office of the 4th respondent. Assuming the contentions to be correct, the 4th respondent was duty bound to give notice to the affected party calling upon them to furnish relevant documents and ought to have afforded an opportunity before proceeding to omit the petitioner’s name from the revenue records.
7. Such necessary actions having not been done, the 4th respondent, even with respect to the representations made by the petitioner at Annexure – B and B1, could have issued notice to the party calling upon them to furnish records available with them and thereafter ought to have passed a speaking order either admitting or rejecting the claim of the party.
8. The endorsement issued by the 4th respondent stating that the records are damaged and that the MR entries are not traceable, cannot be an excuse for the respondents to deny the titular rights of the parties.
9. It is not in dispute that the revenue authorities are the custodian of the records. A duty is cast upon the respondents to verify the records placed by the party in support of her claim.
10. Learned HCGP would submit that in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.32830/2017 dated 27.02.2018 was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by granting six months time to the 4th respondent to enquire into the matter with regard to the veracity and authenticity of documents pertaining to the grant and thereafter to pass a speaking order and would submit that this petition is disposed of on similar terms.
12. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed. Endorsement vide Annexure – A bearing No.RRT/CR/128/2016-17 dated 29.06.2017 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is directed to consider representations made by petitioner vide Annexure B and B1 to the writ petition in accordance with law.
13. The consideration of the representation shall be with reference to the documents enclosed along with this writ petition and the records available in the office of the respondents. The 4th respondent shall also determine the veracity of the documents and thereafter, shall pass a speaking order.
14. The Tahsildar shall consider and dispose of the representation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In view of the aforesaid, this Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above Writ Petition.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.