IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.56096/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDARAMAPPA S/O SANGANABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2ND FLOOR, C.T.BED, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, 3RD CROSS, THYAGARAJNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 028.
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, GATE NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, V.V.TOWER, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY DEVADYRGA, TQ:DEVADURGA, DIST-RAICHUR-56 (BY SRI RAJSHEKHAR K, ADV. FOR R1 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS SRI. R.B. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA. FOR R2 R3 IS SERVED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2016 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEX-N AND DIRECT R-3 TO FURNISH CERTIFIED COPIES THE DOCUMENTS, AS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEX-D DATED 11.01.2013 AND IF NECESSARY BY SECURING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM NEELAKANTARAYAGOUDDA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.09.2016 impugned at Annexure-N. In that light, the petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to furnish the certified copies of the documents as sought by the petitioner in the application as at Annexure-D to the petition.
2. The grandfather of the petitioner claims to be the owner of the house property bearing Old No.4-1-11/New No.4-1-15 situate at Devadurga which is within the jurisdiction of the Town Municipality. The grievance of the petitioner is that the property which belong to the grandfather is thereafter being enjoyed by certain other persons by manipulating the revenue entries and securing change of khatha in respect of the property.
3. In that view, in order to secure the details relating to the manner in which the khatha had been transferred, the petitioner has sought for the details by filing an application under the RTI Act. The details as sought by the petitioner has not been furnished. In that view, the petitioner was before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has ultimately rejected the case of the petitioner by taking note that the document had been furnished as had been directed by respondent No.2 earlier. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the documents having not been furnished, such decision has been arrived at.
4. During the pendency of these proceedings, in order to ascertain as to whether the document is in fact available so that a copy of the same could be made available to the petitioner, this Court had requested the learned Government Advocate to secure instructions in this regard. Learned Government Advocate would refer to the communication received by him dated 18.04.2017 and the documents enclosed thereto. It is pointed out, the information received is that the document as sought by the petitioner is not available in their records not only for the reason that it is an old record, but also due to fact that there was bifurcation of the office and the records were shifted.
5. If that be the position, a direction to furnish the document which is presently according to the respondents not available with them would not be justified. Though that be the position, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the change of khatha and if the petitioner is contending that the property which rightfully belonged to the petitioner has been transferred to any other person by such change of khatha without following due process, it would still be open for the petitioner to assail the mutation entries or the khatha extract in an appropriate proceedings before the competent authority. If such proceedings are initiated, the competent authority will have to notify the person in whose name the khatha presently stands and thereafter consider the matter in accordance with law wherein the issue relating to the change of khatha and the basis on which it was made in any event would be resolved.
Therefore reserving such liberty to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms