IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.63/2018(KLR-RES) BETWEEN SRI PUTTASUBBAPPA S/O LATE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU – 570 001 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE TAHASILDAR MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU – 570 001.
2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURES-B AND E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is seeking direction to the respondents, more particularly, the first respondent - Tahasildar, Mysuru Taluk, to consider his representations dated 27.12.2013 and 25.07.2017 vide Annexures ‘B’ and ‘E’ to the petition and register khata in his name in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres in Sy. No.18 situate at Puttegowdana (stated as Puttenahalli in the prayer portion of the petition) hundi village, varuna hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru, in the light of the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) passed in O.S. No.8/2006 on the file of II Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru.
2. Admittedly, the said suit filed by him against one Sri A.S.Vittala Raju, who was alleged to be disturbing his possession of the aforesaid land, for the relief of permanent injunction has been decreed with costs by judgment and decree dated 15.11.2011 passed by the trial Court.
3. It is seen that the first respondent has issued endorsement dated 24.02.2014 (Annexure ‘C’ to the petition) to the effect that khata in respect of the land in question cannot be registered in the name of the petitioner on the basis of judgment and decree for permanent injunction passed by the trial Court in the said suit. Accordingly, representation of the petitioner has been disposed of.
4. The records would indicate that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing writ petition in W.P. No.52784/2015 (KLR-RES) seeking similar relief as sought in this petition along with an additional direction to the respondents to consider the legal notice dated 08.08.2015. A coordinate Bench of this Court while observing in its order dated 21.03.2017 (Annexure ‘D’ to the petition) that writ of mandamus does not lie for enforcement of a legal notice issued by a lawyer which has not been replied, dismissed the said writ petition as misconceived. While doing so, coordinate Bench of this Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents and make necessary application in a manner known to law.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.
6. In the present petition, the documents pertaining to the grant of 02 Acres in Sy. No.18 situate at Puttenagowda hundi village are not produced before this Court. Though the petitioner claims that the land in question was a Government kharab land and was cultivated by him as an unauthorized occupant since 1979, it is seen that the State was not a party to the suit in O.S. No.8/2006 on the file of II Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru. Hence, State never had opportunity to look into the correctness or otherwise of the documents pertaining to the land in question. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rejection of the prayer of petitioner for registering khata in respect of the aforesaid land in his name vide endorsement dated 24.02.2014 in proceedings No.RRT(va).332/13-14 appears to be just and proper. However, the petitioner has not sought for quashing of the said endorsement in this petition.
7. In that view of the matter the question of interfering with the said endorsement vide Annexure ‘C’ to the petition and issuing any direction to the respondents as sought by the petitioner does not arise.
8. It is made clear that the aforesaid observations would not take away the right of the petitioner to approach the first respondent - Tahasildar, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru, and make an application seeking for registering of khata of the land in question in his name by producing all the documents pertaining to the grant in respect of the said land made in his favour by the Competent Authority. In the event if the documents to be produced by the petitioner are found to be issued by the Competent Authority and in order, the same shall be looked into by the first respondent - Tahasildar and thereafter, consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application from the petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
10. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma