Sri Kiran H D vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12648 Kant

                            1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.19370 OF 2022(KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:


SRI.KIRAN H D,
S/O LATE DEVENDRA H T,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
#22, HYADALU VILLAGE,
MYALANAHALLI POST,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL- 562 123.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
   REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
   GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
   VIDHANA SOUDHA,
   BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE TAHASILDAR,
   DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
   BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203.

3. SIDDAGANGAPPA,
   S/O SIDDARAMAIAH,
   AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
                                2




  TRIVENI NILAYA, HYADALU VILLAGE,
  MYALANAHALLI POST,
  NELAMANGALA TALUK,
  BANGALORE RURAL - 562 123.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
    NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ORDERS            AT          ANNEXURE-J          VIDE
NO.R.R.T(THIDDUPADI)C.R/727/17.18   PASSD    BY    THE
TAHSILDAR DATED 31.10.2017 IN PROCEEDINGS RRT
NO.724/17.18 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.83/3 RENUMBERED AS
SY.NO.83/1 OF MYLANHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU RURAL TO AN
EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 10.08 GUNTAS AND CONSEQUENT ENTRIES
AS PER MR NO.H0 OF MYLANHALLI VILLAGE,BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE-K,IS NONEST AND AB INITIO
VOID. AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

This petition seeks to lay a challenge to the order

dated 31.10.2017 made by the Tahasildar at Annexure-J in

RTS proceedings.

2. Learned AGA on request having accepted notice

for the official respondents, notice to respondent No.3

having been dispensed with, opposes the petition

contending that the petitioner can maintain an appeal under

Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

and therefore, the indulgence of writ court is not warranted.

So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is

broadly in agreement with the submission of the learned

AGA.

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off

reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke appellate

jurisdiction as indicated above, within a period of twenty

days.. If appeal is filed within twenty days, the issue of

limitation shall pale into insignificance. All other contentions

are kept open

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to

Respondent No.3 through speed post immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE DS