Sri Jayarama Reddy vs The Tahsildar
2022 Latest Caselaw 9852 Kant

                            -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

          WRIT APPEAL NO. 323 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:

SRI JAYARAMA REDDY
S/O LATE OBALA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RAYASANDRA VILLAGE,
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI,
KGF TALUK, PIN NO - 563 116.                ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE TAHSILDAR,
       KGF TALUK, KGF,
       KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       KOLAR DISTRICT,
       KOLAR - 563 101.

3.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
       M.S. BUILDING,
       BENGALURU - 560001.               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA,)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2022 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.4877/2022 (KLR-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION OR PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/S.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                    -2-


                             JUDGMENT

The captioned writ appeal is filed by the appellant

who is questioning the order dated 04.03.2022 passed by

the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4877/2022.

2. The appellant herein who is the petitioner in the

writ petition is asserting right to get his name mutated in

respect of the lands bearing Sy.No.85/4 (corresponding old

Sy.No.9/2) and Sy.No.10 to an extent of 35 guntas by

placing reliance on the reports of the Revenue Inspector

and the Tahsildar which are produced as Annexures-J1 and

J2 respectively to the writ petition. Based on the said

reports, the appellant had submitted an application to the

Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, enclosing the copy of the

report of the Revenue Inspector. Respondent No.1-

Tahsildar, on enquiry, issued an endorsement dated

17.01.2022 rejecting the claim of the appellant which was

impugned before the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.4877/2022.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Single

Judge has relegated the appellant to workout efficacious

remedy as available under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the said Act'). This

order is under challenge in this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the

appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents and perused the order under

challenge.

5. The endorsement dated 17.01.2022 issued by

respondent No.1 falls within the provisions of Section 129

of the said Act. If the appellant feels that he is entitled to

get his name mutated in terms of the report issued by the

Revenue Inspector, it is quite open for him to place reliance

on the said report by preferring an appeal as provided

under Section 136 (2) of the said Act. In this background,

we find that the order under challenge does not suffer from

any infirmity. In the event the appellant prefers an appeal

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order, the concerned authority shall extend the

benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is also

open for the appellant to place reliance on the grant order

dated 19.06.1962.

6. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. All

contentions are kept open.

7. The pending interlocutory application stands

disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

VM