_ 1 VIIIIV
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY or NOVEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S. PATH;
W.P.No.17563/2010 (KLR~RE9}*:" .1" J"
BETWEEN: it
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palikeg. A'
N.R.Square, .
Bangalore, T '
Rep.by its Commissioner. &PE'TI'I';IONER
{By Sri D.Nagaraja, Adv.' for . _ V
Sri T.Jayaprakash, Adv.) ' * }
AND:
1. Sri B.A.Krishna*_Murthy;"C_' ._
S/o Vvteiifxbbayafigaa, A
R/at No.9, pap'a:;ih is1:r'ee__t';' * '
Doddainavalli; Bangalo'r.e--"0
2. The Enquiry" bffioer,
City Survey Cii'cl_e¢3, _
. it - Jo-int 33ire*c.tor of Land Records,
» Circle,_B~a.ngalore-04.
Joint" -Diizeotor of Land Records,
South
Bangalore (formerly at Mysore)
' it it ' {By Om Kumar, AGA for R2 & 3)
RESPONDENTS
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
26.11.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure--C and
H. 'etc.
1.2"
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the Court made the following-
ORDER
}. Learned Additional Government Advocate takeds for
respondents 2 & 3.
2. Challenge in this writ petitiioni “:’s~ .:c._ t11e«f.:_orde_r”fdated 7
26.11.2008 passed by the Joint Directorof Land’ Rec’ords,”*
Survey, South Division, Mysor’u3.’,.:°vide 13y the
impugned order, the Joint..1)ireetor”.1.§and’S-Recordshas dismissed
the revision petition fi1ed’4’h3f_’thé-V.-gfrit challenging the
entries made fin respect of CTS
No.418, 430;’and~.. in the name of the 1st
respondent 1
3. Pursuant to surv”ey conducted, the name of the 1st
respondent came tohe recorded on 19.01.1974. The grievance
. if ‘or the {pe–ti’tio”n.er before’ the Joint Director of Land Record was
isisziviing any notice to the petitioner, the City Survey
Officer haVs.ree.–orded the name of the 1st respondent in the City
ff”‘~-‘..__’Survey records on 19.01.1974. It was asserted before the Joint
that the properties in question were the properties
1’ lddbeionging to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as the same was
ired in favour of the Corporation by a Notification dated
_ 3 _
02.09.1917 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act. The Joint Director of Land Records has dismissed the
revision etition b considerin the res ective contentions and
Y P
after examining the records produced before
finding that even as per the records of
Sy.Nos.29 and 30, out of which the1;propertie’sg iiiAAqi1esti.o:nCV.we:i.*e ‘
carved out are not shown 1arids’Uacqui,red:ivunderlhtherp
Notification issued in the year”Via9:li7. has
further found that the I\l’:otififica_tion’gA on which
the Corporation placed Sy.Nos.29 and
30 showing for school. Dark.
playground background, the Joint
Directorjhas toV:’the’«conclusion that the assertion made by
the Corpoir’a_tion over the properties in question
could not be e’n’tev1jt’ai111ed’.’
~ _IVhav’eyl*ieard_ the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned’ Government Advocate and carefully perused
the rnateidalsélilon record. There is absolutely no document
it CC V’ Cllprodvucpedvvby the Corporation to show that it had any right over
Nos.418, 430, 431 at the time when the same were
ulrécorded in the name of the 15′ respondent by the City Survey
it “Officer as back as in the year 1974. In such circumstances, no
A’
_. 4 IIIIIIA
fault can be found with the order passed by the Joint Director of
Land Records. If the Corporation has any right over these
lands, it has to be established in accordance with Iaw.be-fore_ the
appropriate forum and not by chailenging the
the City Survey records decades back in,”
Therefore, I do not find any merit in thi-sc«yi”*ritaa».}$e.tition.V
the writ petition is dismissed. —
5. Learned Additionalzfiovernment ‘Adyocateis pennitted to
file memo of appearance from today.
sa/3
moss
PKS