M}.
_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1 1*"! DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20 3,9
BEFORE T t
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S. Pafm, 'H...' "' "
W.P.No.22{)75/2010
BETWEEN:
Sri Chikkarnaddappa,
S / O late Munigangappa,
Aged about 56 years.
Chikkakadiganahalli Village, .
Nandi Hobli, Chiekballap*u.ré1_A 3 AA 'A
Taluk and District. . 'JJETITIONER
[By Sri M.Munigan*gappa,
AND: ' 1 V . t V.
1. The estate --Of"KarfiHtaka.,
Department 'Of Rev'enue,"* . . '
Vikasa S'Oucih_a,' V' " __
Dr.B.R;Ambedkar -\/eedh__i,"* "
Bangalore-,. represerited «
by its Secretary." " V
. A Tr1e.I):*eput3z Connifissioner,
' V C~hiVc1-:ba~1l'a.p€1r__a District,
3. '1'heAssist;H1t Commissioner,
Ch'iekb.aI1apura Sub Division,
V Chieklqéllapura.
'Tfie.'Tahsi1dar.
Chiekballapura Taluk.
jchickballapm-a. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R.Om Kumar, AGA)
*=i=*
_go
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement
dated 26.4.2010 issued by the respondent No.4, vide Annexure»
W and etc. 7
This petition coming on for Preliminary r-iiroupp
this day. the Court made the foilowingh .. –. ~
9.13.2213
1. In this writ petition, Vpetitixonerii is cl_i_.alleri~giVI1§._,/the
endorsement dated 26.04.20 j5sue.d’., j”-this’avril’ah’sildar,V
Chikballapur — respondent “r.eJ’ecti’n’g””hisV§request to
enter his name in the the lands bearing
Sy.No.20 measupringg ‘measuring 38 guntas
of _Chikballapur Taluk and
District. —- .
2. Petitio__ner has “entering his name in the khatha
in respect of aforementioned lands alleging that the said
. itlandhasEabeerit.pgranteldwin his favour and a saguvali chit dated
be issued by the Tahsildar. He enclosed a
copy the chit issued by the Tahsildar on 08.12.1989
Form” in respect of his claim that the land in question
‘Wvas._pgranted in his favour. The Tahsildar has rejected the
-hvrequest observing that there was no record in his office
:regarding the grant of land in favour of the petitioner. He has
Jr
_ 3 _i
further stated that even after searching the records of the year
1988-89, no records could be traced showing the grantgrnade in
favour of the petitioner and in such circumstances :.re(:;’L1est
made by the petitioner could not be acceded to.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner..has ifeliancelloriu ‘ ; it
the saguvali chit issued vide AnneXure–E1._’_’ fa{cs:._”1ie
before the Court, at the time ofgvlarguments, a copy of!’
the saguvali chit which is issued_VVVby_ the Tah’sildar_:§and which
bears the seal of the office the contend that the
rejection of his request totally illegal and
unjustified.
4. It is seen’ ‘1*n_a’terials produced along with the writ
petition that” the-. lpetitioinerherein had filed a suit in
O.S.No.’2v96/1§90_againsi the third party alleging interference in
p’e’z-lceiful pcssessionmand enjoyment of the suit property and
-decree of permanent injunction is obtained by
hirnin o:s;1\i”c5.;2l96/1990 on 25.05.1992. It is also clear from
— copy of the mahazar drawn by the revenue
A gllauytlioriiies that the petitioner is shown to have been in actual
spgosésession and enjoyment of portions of the lands in question.
~ lit is also clear from Annexure–C — sketch prepared by the
£6
_ 4 _.
Revenue Inspector, Nandi Hobli, Chikballapur Taluk that the
land in possession of the petitioner is identified. H These
documents have not been considered by the ‘Fahsi1d’a~rV,:’-..r_:il\;rIe_re1y
because the original records pertaining to the
available with the Tahsildar, he cannot reject: thespof
petitioner, particularly when it is supportedthe’
of the saguvali chit issued theV’7T_aVhsilda’r’.v’h’ jlactualv
possession and enjoyment of thet”pr:operty2,”thVe_’duration of the
petitioners enjoyment ‘ _coupled with the
documents such as prepared at an
undisputed and receipt which is
produced at€’ria§’o6;§989 have to be taken
note of action to record the name of
the petitionerin based on these documents is
required to be “~t_al:en. “The petitioner who is a poor farmer
V ‘cannot fmade to approach this Court time and again. In fact
“pe£iderrei=.s’.?~~ had approached earlier by filing
W.P.’i\Io.3_849i4~/A2009 and this Court passed an order on
directing respondent No.4 – Tahsildar to consider
dthe -reijuest of the petitioner for change of khatha. Pursuant to
p directions, only the impugned order is passed.
VVVVVVV 5 Vllllll
5. The impugned order as already observed does not take
note of the relevant materials. Hence, the same is set__ aside.
The Tahsiidar is directed to reconsider the same taking:._f1oteA’of
the documents referred to herein above and recozfci the
the petitioner in the khatha in acmrdanccri ‘
petition is accordingly disposed of.
PKS