Halappa vs The Duputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 13058 Kant

                             1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.37015 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. HALAPPA,
   S/O LATE LAKKEGOWDA,
   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

2. SIDDEGOWDA,
   S/O LATE LAKKEGOWDA,
   AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

3. CHANDREGOWDA,
   S/O LATE LAKKEGOWDA,
   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/O DHANTARAMAKKI,
JYOTHINAGARA POST-577 102,
CHICKMAGALURU TALUK,
CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT.
NOTE: AS AGE PROOF OF PETITIONER NO.2
NOT AVAILABLE, SENIOR CITIZENSHIP
NOT CLAIMED)
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.JAGADEESH D C, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DUPUTY COMMISSIONER,
   CHICKMAGLURU DISTRICT,
   CHICKMAGALRUU-577101.

2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
   REVENUE SUB-DIVISION,
   CHICKMAGALURU-577 101.
                                  2

3. THE TAHSILDAR,
   CHICKMAGALRUU TALUK,
   CHICKMAGALURU-577 101.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DTD.4.6.2015 VIDE ANNEX-E ISSUED BY THE R-
1 AS THE SAME IS ILELGAL AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF
LAW AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING -
B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                           ORDER

The subject matter of this writ petition is

substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.49249/2016

between SRI S.GANGAIAH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA &

OTHERS disposed off by this Court vide order dated

08.11.2022 granting some reprieve to the litigant therein.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners banking upon

the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-

933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY,

disposed of on 11.12.1974, submits that his client also

being similarly circumstanced, has to be granted the same

relief there being no repugnant circumstances that militates

against the same.

3. Learned AGA submits that if the petitioners gives

a representation to remove the phodi, an appropriate

decision would be taken in the Scheme of Sec.163 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 r/w Rule 119 of

Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, provided that

petitioners furnish all necessary information and

documents, regardless of the impugned endorsement. This

is absolutely fair.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off,

reserving liberty to the petitioners to give representation

within four weeks as indicated above and if one is made,

the official respondents shall take a call on that, within an

outer limit of three months.

It is open for the answering respondents to solicit any

information/documents from the side of the petitioners as

are required for due consideration of the representation in

contemplation and in the guise of such solicitation delay

shall not be brooked.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb/