IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.43189/2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN SMT.SUGUNA W/O LATE M.K.MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.529, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560054. ... PETITIONER (By Sri PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE TAHSILDAR DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, DODDABALLAPUR-85. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DTD:24.2.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-B; AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE KHATHA CERTIFICATE IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus against respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Doddaballapur Taluk, to act in accordance with the order dated 24.02.2012 produced at Annexure-B and restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of land measuring 3 acres comprised in Sy.No.26 of Hosudya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
2. According to petitioner, land in question was granted in favour of her late husband M.K.Muniraju as per grant order dated 10.08.1979, followed by issuance of grant certificate on 10.10.1979. It is urged by the petitioner that ever since the date of grant, her husband and other family members have been in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. The khata of the property was transferred in the name of her husband M.K.Muniraju.
3. By order dated 13.10.1992, revenue entries were sought to be cancelled for the year 1989-90 to 1991-92 in respect of several survey numbers situated in Hosudya Village and Besuvanhalli Village including the land in question. There was also an attempt to dispossess the petitioner by the authorities of the Government. This made the petitioner to file a suit in O.S.No.246/2002. The said suit was decreed on 13.03.2008. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application on 13.10.2011 to restore the khatha in her name in respect of land in question. Respondent No.2 - Tahsildar found that petitioner was in possession of land in question and issued an endorsement dated 24.02.2012 vide Annexure-B thereby ordering that in terms of the decree passed in Civil Court in O.S.No.246/2002, khata has to be restored in the name of the petitioner and revenue entries have to be effected in her name. A perusal of this order also discloses that order passed by the Civil Court has attained finality.
4. Grievance now made before this Court by the petitioner is that despite such an order passed as back as on 24.02.2012, name of the petitioner has not been restored in the khata and pahani in respect of land in question despite repeated efforts made by the petitioner in this connection. Therefore, she has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to implement the order dated 24.02.2012 and restore her name in the revenue records.
5. When the matter was listed on 21.09.2017, learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to take notice for respondents and secure instructions as to why khata has not been so far restored in the name of the petitioner despite decree passed in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court. Today, on instructions from respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Doddaballapur, learned Additional Government Advocate points out that certain enquiry has been initiated in respect of land Sy.No.26 of Hosudya Village which is a vast extent of land and the matter is seized by the COD and therefore, the Tahsildar has not been able to take any action in the absence of the records.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, as can be found from the order dated 24.02.2012 passed vide Annexure-B by the Tahsildar himself, petitioner has obtained a decree in her favour in O.S.No.246/2002 disposed of on 13.03.2008 and her name has to be restored in terms of the decree. It is also noticed that before the death of M.K.Muniraju, his name was entered in the revenue record. Therefore, in the absence of any interim stay of the decree by the Appellate Court, omission on the part of the Tahsildar in not implementing the order dated 24.02.2012 cannot be justified.
Merely because some enquiry is pending whether or not petitioner’s land has been involved in the said enquiry, the Tahsildar cannot ignore his obligation to act in terms of the decree passed by the Civil Court to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue record.
Hence, this writ petition is allowed in part. A direction is issued to respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Doddaballapur Taluk, Doddaballapur, to take action in accordance with law for implementing the order dated 24.04.2012 keeping in mind the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.246/2002 on 13.03.2008 (wrongly mentioned as 18.03.2008 in Annexure-B - order) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS