The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF JULY 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WP Nos.28603/2014 & 29476-29479/2014 (LR) BETWEEN 1. SRI B.V.SEETHARAMA RAO S/O SHRI B.S.VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O BELAKAVADI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 2. SMT.SHARADAMMA W/O LATE B.V.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O BELAKVADI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 3. SRI B.V.SESHADRI S/O B.S.VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O BELAKAVADI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 4. SRI B.V.ANANTHAPADNABHA S/O SRI B.S.VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O BELAKAVADI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 5. SRI B.V.VENKATASUBBAIAH S/O SRI B.S.VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O BELAKAVADI VILLAGE - 2 - MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI PRAKASH.G.R., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401 3. THE TAHSILDAR & MUZARAI OFFICER MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP) THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3 TAHASILDAR AND MUZARAI OFFICER, MALAVALLI TQ. MALAVALLI, TO PASS ORDERS ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.3.2014 (ANNX-F) SUBMITTED TO HIM BY THE PETITIONERS WITHIN A TIME FRAME SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Petitioners have sought a direction to the third respondent – the Tahsildar, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District, to consider representation dated 11.3.2014 - 3 - (Annexure-F) within the time frame to be granted by this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that various survey Nos. in Belakavadi village, Malavalli taluk, were inam lands which were cultivated by the petitioners and their father. Subsequent to the enforcement of the Inam Abolition Act, petitioners’ father B.S.Venkatachalaiah had filed an application for grant of occupancy right in respect of Survey Nos.377, 378, 424, 425, 434, 345, 436, 347, 498, 64 and 373. The application was rejected by the order dated 18.12.1965. Thereafter, an application was filed before the Land Tribunal at Malavalli, in the year 1987-88 seeking occupancy right in respect of the said lands and by the order dated 18.10.1998, occupancy right in respect of survey Nos.64 and 498 were granted in favour of petitioners’ father. Thereafter, the petitioners filed one more application for grant of occupancy right before the Tahsildar, in INA No.25/1998. That application was rejected by the order dated 20.5.2003. Against the - 4 - said order, appeal Nos.1330/2003 and other connected appeals were filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.10.2009 remanded the matter to the second respondent- Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya, for a fresh consideration. On remand, the second respondent has passed an order dated 21.01.2012 in INA No.7/2009, granting occupancy right. Thereafter, petitioners sought for entry of their name in the revenue records by making a representation dated 16.1.2013 and consequently, followed up by other representations. In the meanwhile, the third respondent had sought for clarification in respect of extent of two survey numbers and by the order dated 10.06.2013 in INA No.7/2009, the second respondent clarified the said issue. Thereafter, the petitioners have made one more representation dated 11.3.2014 (Annexure-F). The grievance of the petitioners is that the said representations have not been considered - 5 - and their names have not been mutated in the revenue records. Hence, a direction is sought in that regard. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record. 4. Having regard to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 12.10.2009, and the subsequent orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 21.1.2012 an 16.1.2013, the representation made by the petitioners ought to have been considered in light of those orders. Since the same has not yet been done, a direction is issued to the third respondent or to the competent authority to consider the representations made by the petitioners with regard to the entry of petitioners’ names in the revenue records, in light of the aforesaid orders and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. - 6 - With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed. Sd/- JUDGE Yn. .

Load more