Karnataka High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Sri K Ramamurthy on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38264-DB
WA No. 462 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
2. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
DASANAPURA-2 HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU 562 123.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA)
Digitally AND:
signed by
SHARADA SRI. K RAMAMURTHY,
VANI B S/O LATE K KEMPAIAH,
Location: AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF R/AT No.538, 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK,
KARNATAKA RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 24/03/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.2488/2022 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND B)
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WRIT PETITION NO.2488/2022
FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38264-DB
WA No. 462 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal by the State Officials seeks to
lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated
24.03.2022 whereby the Respondent's W.P.No.2488/2022
having been allowed, "the Tahsildar is directed to continue
the name of petitioner in revenue records in respect of 1
acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.25 situated at
Bailakonenahalli Village, Dasanpura Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order".
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the Appellants argues that the proceedings
under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 are still pending and therefore, direction of the kind
for making entry in the name of the Respondent herein
could not have been issued.
3. Having heard the learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants and
having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence
NC: 2023:KHC:38264-DB
WA No. 462 of 2023
in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning on
which the impugned order has been structured inasmuch
as, the enquiry as to the grant of the land in question does
not pertain to the domain of RTS proceedings under
Section 136(2) of the 1964 Act and that they are
independent. Admittedly, the name of Writ Petitioner
came to entered pursuant to M R No. 1/91-92 and it
continued till the computerization of the Revenue Records
was undertaken. Merely because the records are being
digitalized, the name earlier continuing cannot be
discontinued.
4. It hardly needs to be stated that the direction of
the learned Single Judge for continuing the name of Writ
Petitioner in the Revenue Records is subject to outcome of
Section 67(2) enquiry. Obviously, such an enquiry would
include the discussion as to the "title facts" namely,
whether there was grant or not; in that connection, all
contentions need to be kept open consistent with
reasoning of the impugned order.
NC: 2023:KHC:38264-DB
WA No. 462 of 2023
In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid
of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to
the Respondent by Speed Post.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb,
