High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Puttarangappa vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Puttarangappa vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2010
Author: B.S.Patil
mlw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 16'?" DAY OF NOVEMBER. 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 3.5. Piaaéjti; ' ;;~f   .

W.P.Nos.33310 3: 34*?54/zoyio [KLR:R}?'.}"S:I1R] - _  ''

BETWEEN:

1.

Sri Puttarangappa,
S/o Sri Muddarangappa,
Aged about 67 years,  ..

Shanivarayappa, I   ,
S/o Sri Mudda1fangapp;1,V'  v
Aged about 55_ycars, f T '

Both are  _
AdaVinagoria}fial:1i1\/I:1j:1i*a,:j> &_  E
Kodigen.ahal1i'Ho?o1i, » V '

MadhTugiri'T2t1vuk.   "

.j a:ia.hai'1:,3.'_i H .

PETITION ERS

(By Sri sné:;a}a.ppai;._Aa§; ft.-;r.. 
Sri I~I.V.I-Iaris-h_V. Adv.}__ A V -~

State oi' Karfiataka,
L'_repar_tn<iehtV"of Revenue

H '--By--.its Sebretary,

'P 

\/'1.(;1har1ia Soudha.
Battgalore'.

'The I)Vé"pu_ty Commissioner,

Tu1'ij.1<ur District.

" .Tuinku:'_

.' "The Assistant Commissioner,

Madhugil-I SubwDivis1or1,
Madhugi.1'i, Tumkur District.



4. The Thasildar,
Madhugiri. Tumkur District.

5. The Assistant Commissioner,
Survey Records,
Office of Commissioner. Land Records,

K.R.Circle. Bangalore.  R}.:",_;7.'sl?().'.V:'VI3";i'¥3i'wIV'.'[:fSf'V' 

{By Sri R.Kumar. HCGP]

9£==¢=*

These writ petitions are Viileidpunder .Articies and 22*?'

of the Constitution of India prayiiagto quash the endorsement
dated 4.10.2010 passed by A..--re_spor1dent No..4--..V Thasildar,
Madhugiri Taluk, Tt1n1kL1.r'District,_vic!.e_An--nexure--A.

These writ petitions  ion:'*~forA--f.fPrei1m1nary Hearing
this day. the COu1"ft"f{iadE.'f V'

he foi1oivin.g:~ I 
1.  endoI9ser1ient  by the Tahsildar, Madhugiri, on
O4.10.20i{)_  tfh---efl'petitioners that changes in the

I'€V€nI_;~_/3.. recorfdsppurstiantv to the decree passed by the Civil

'iif"C?ou'rt€'cannoit._be effected as the computer software available

 designed to effect such changes and that

correspondenieeff had been made with the Assistant

 V'Commissi__o~ner and the Office of the Director of Land Records

  f'.p_ro':.riding such facility is challenged in these writ petitions.

 The case of the petitioners is that as per the decree

if  " passed in O.S.No.253/2002 on 31.08.2010 declaring their right

6/



, 3 _
over the land bearing Sy.No. 19/}. New Sy.No. 19/IA measuring
2 acres 12 guntas of Shuddekunte, Kodigenahalli Hobli,
Madhugiri Taluk, they have applied for effecting'lrevenue

entries in the revenue records. However, the Tahs.i.ldar'1-'i'asV'not

effected the same. Instead, he has issued

endorsement pleading his inability 3;¢:"ei12:a_ such revlenuveientiy. 7

3. Learned Government Pleader who has accepted notice for;

respondents-1 to 5 submits thata_s'is cleai=.'from the impugned

endorsement. the Tahsildar has correspondence with the
higher authorities and fqne’cessa1_yl.l«~steps to be taken

in this regard; i5o’1f:.eg:fi1al{1’ng§ avlai1’ab.1e.l”thejrequired software to

enter of~.the judgment and decree based on
which re-quletsts are:rtiade_.lbjv,et1.;e interested parties to enter their

names in thlerecords. 7His~.-submission is that in the present set

= up a:vlailablei,_ sucAh’i’vv–ci.lity is not provided and a reasonable time

» to enable the authorities to take steps to

provide a facility to effect entries in the revenue

‘,Vrecorlds regard to the judgment and decree to be passed by

A ..fthe’lc’o¢urts of law.

it cannot be denied that if the rights over a particular

” uproperty {agricultural land} is declared by the Court of

a

_ 4 _
competent. jurisdiction, the same requires to be entered in the
revenue records based on the necessary application filed by the

interested person, after following the required proc_edure.’-V.vThe

inability now expressed by the Tahsildar is on ae%§§5liri’i.1′;urf’

technical difficulty faced by him as the COmpiE’L€i;::::sOf’t\.AfEtE€ now.

available does not cover the entriesgto effected’ lbas’ed«_or1:1v=the

Court orders. The submission ‘made ]th.<; learned'

Government Pleader requiring to_take.'st_eps infithis regard
is just and appropriate.'

5. As submitted ._by months time is
granted to regard and to consider
the ap})1ic’at’ioit1;/ relpifeselntation lhpsdulbflmitted by the petitioners
seekinglt-o enter .the.i’r=.nia1nes’:hased on the decree passed. It is

needless to o”‘nse’we that thebother interested persons have to be

.”i.y_notifie’d __beF9re utaki.n–g’ such steps. Writ Petitions are

.7 acVco’1’dii’ig1y divsposed of.

6. A Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of

‘ appearance within three weeks from today.

gdf!”

EEFDSE

it “ms