IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE»
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER .20: . K
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUsTIc:E"B.s .1P;ATILef _ F.
w.P.No.39152/203.0(Ki;R-R1ǤJ * ' K L
W.P.No.39153/2010 ('EI:.R--RR/SUR}--
BETWEEN:
Mr.Anar1d Nadathur," : _ -
S/0.Sr1.N.S.RaghaVa11;;._,'
Aged about 35 years, 'V ' _ .
Resldmg at No.A-60.4",'
'shoba Opal', _39th"~CfoE§_, _
4EhT Bi0ck,;Jayar13.gar, if ' _
Bangalore -- 560 041} .. " ..
Represented herein by fiiS .pDwe1'. of
Attorney Ho1de1*'g_ " V V _ "
Mr.A.c.K1ngson, '
S/0.Sr1.Bh;1r1upraka's.hV,
Agede-.3bo«:'iD't':~3'3T ./Years, A """ " 'V
Residingat
61" C*r0ss,j E{u't9,_hins.D_RQad,
St.ThdmaS_TDWf;v,.__ Common
'Ba<ngalore_ '_ 560 'D34. ...PETITIONER
_ S:1.RaV1.B;Na1k, Sr.C0unse1 for
%'1sriD.'K7'shr:% Han, AdV., for M /s.Lex Justicia Advs.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Revenue Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Mysore District, " "
Mysore.
3. The Tahasildar. __ _ ,
Mysore Taluk, ' * Common
Mysore District. . . .';¢jRE'SPONDENTS
[By Sri R.Om Kumrir r it it
W.P.No.39152-I/25010 is_Vfil'er_1"under Article 226 and 227
of the Constit--ution'~t.of I1ii--d.ia"~praying'-todirect the respondents
No. 2 and 3 to _c'oraply9,with'~.tl1e statutory requirements of
Section 128 of the I_{ari1.ateal§a__gLand Revenue Act 1964 read
with Rules 62.' .63,64'wantl"5_5'*«--of"the Karnataka Land Revenue
Rules 1966 withregards to the property bearing Sy.No. 137 / 2
situated at' Kudanahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore and
any. '_other--'., Write' and' other relief as seen fit under the
circunistari_ce's"of"i:he case and quash notice dated 12. 10.2010
mar1«_ied..as. -B, by issuing Writ of Certiorary.
W;I§.'Nlo.39'li537'/V2010 is filed under Article 226 and 227
of"the Cor'istit.ution of India praying to direct the respondents
_N_Q4. and 8 to comply with the statutory requirements of
'Section. 128 or the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 read
'iWlth"RL1Vl€ 63, 64 and 65 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
«Rilles 1965"with regards to the property bearing Sy.No. 137/ l,
' siltu'a'ted;at Kudanahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the Court made the following: 7
ORDER
1. Learned Additional Government Advocate’ tlirelc-ted to if i
take notice for respondents.
2. Since both the writ petition.s”‘are’–similar Ainnature, they
are clubbed together and aillovgedllwilth order.
3. In both is aggrieved by
the notice ll/Iysore Taluk, Mysore,
calling upon’ ‘the to make available several
documents the sale deed, current RTC
e,:§g;tracts,v.’:1j}i1 encurnbrance”certificate, particulars showing the
agrie1_il’ttiral. the petitioner as on 01.04.1974 and
petitioner from sources other than
fjigriculture a period of 5 years anterior to the date of
This endorsement is issued pursuant to the
req:’u.es_t.Ernade by the petitioner to effect change in the revenue
records in respect of land bearing Sy.No.l37/2 situated at
Kudanahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk measuring
15 acres excluding 28 guntas of karab land. 4.
the connected writ petition has.~~purch’_ase’d”fa
measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.137}’lV
village. As the petitioner purchased “the said way
of registered sale deed exe.cutedg..o11 v:,.1″g_::3.'(VV):’i),.’S2OO”‘/A’;”he”requested
the revenue Authority Mysore Taluk,
Mysore to effect 2 in his name.
Instead of considering’ on the basis of
the registered. lfahsildar has issued the
impugned the petitioner to produce
several particula”rs_/Vdociurrients as referred to herein above.
learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the that the Tahsildar has acted without
VV’7’ae.ju1″Jsdictio’1i.. calling upon the petitioner to produce these
as his statutory duty under Section 128 of the
.i”4″_’jKa1’natal<a Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') is to act on
the basis of the registered sale deed executed and effect
changes in the record of rights in the name of the
5. Obviousiy there can be no legal justifica.ti:onVv
the impugned notice by the ‘
petitioner to produce the particulars. particidars aife”‘no:t* ~’
required for the purpose of of the
petitioner in the revenue’ to thefiregistered
sate deed. The contention’prof”theV_iean’ied’TSetiior counse} for
the petitioner is ¥a=.n;dp that the
Tahsiidar has law as per Section
128 ofthe -Add 1:” t I
6. Hence, thiesegwrii; are allowed. The impugned
notice is set aside. The Tahsiidar is directed to act in
accord’a.nceprovisions contained under Section 128
the appropriate orders recording the name of
Vpetitionertpursuant to the registered sale deed executed.
to the petitioner to produce the copy of the
registered sale deed before the Tahsildar and make a fresh
request in this regard.
VP 3 d / J" . j , _ V