Karnataka High Court
Sri Yerrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.3861 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN
W.P.No.43127 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. YERRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
NO.139, RAMA DEVA GARDEN
KACHERAKANA HALLI
HENNUR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE 560084.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. MANOHAR N, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERMENT OF KARNATAKA
M '8' BUILDING ANNEX
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
VISHVESHWARIAH MINI TOWER
2
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562110.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2018 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.43127/2017
(S- RES) AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION. PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDERS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND
NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING
THE COST.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.Manohar N., learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.B.Rajendra Prasad, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondents.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is heard finally.
In this intra Court appeal, the appellant has assailed
the validity of the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by
the appellant is dismissed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are
that the father of the petitioner was allotted land bearing
Sy.No.55 measuring 4 acres of Yarthiganahalli village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
However, no phodi was conducted in respect of aforesaid
land. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation
dated 04.12.2013 to the respondent No.3 to carry out the
phodi. The aforesaid representation failed to evoke any
response. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider his representation dated 04.12.2013. The writ
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge inter alia
on the ground that there is no order on record evidencing the
grant in favour of the father of the petitioner in respect of
land in question. In the aforesaid factual background, this
appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
father of the petitioner was granted the land in question by
the State Government. It is further submitted that the
respondents ought to have considered the representation
submitted by the petitioner to effect phodi and durasti work
in respect of the land in question.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government
Advocate submitted that suitable action on the
communication dated 23.12.2013 sent by the Deputy
Commissioner to the Tahsildar shall be taken.
5. We have perused the original record which is
produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate in
response to the order dated 23.02.2022. From the original
record, we find that there is neither an order of grant nor
saguvali chit on record to establish the title. However, it will
be open to the Tahsildar to take appropriate action in the
light of communication dated 23.12.2013 at Annexure-A,
sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar.
6. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is modified.
It is made clear that we have not expressed any
opinion with regard to the merits of the case as the same has
to be looked into by the Tahsildar after satisfying himself
with regard to the title of the petitioner over the land in
question.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
