CDR. K.A. Uthappa vs The State of Karnataka

Dr. Jawad Rahim, J.—The petitioner in this writ action seeks writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No. 3 to 5 to issue khata in respect of sy. No. 174 to an extent of 1 are of land described in the schedule and also seeks other directions to the respondent.

Sri. R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh taken notice for the respondent.

Heard.

The material proposition in the pleadings show the petitioner who was serving in the Indian Air Force has retired and intending to stay in his native place claims he has purchased lands measuring 1 acre in sy. No. 174 which is assessed to the land revenue as is evident from deed of sale vide Annexure-A.

Having thus acquired the property, he applied to the respondents for change of khata, but his request has been rejected by Respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-B. Assailing it, he is in petition.

Learned counsel Sri. Angadi S.V. would submit, the petitioner along with P. Vinod purchased the property in question and there is no rival claim. The endorsement vide Annexure-B is unsustainable as without assigning any reason request for change of khata has been rejected.

Learned Government Advocate Sri. Sathyanarayana Singh, responding to said submission, submits before issuing the impugned endorsement, respondents had secured the records which reveals petitioner has not paid Tax (kandayam). Thus they issued an endorsement stating Kandayam has not been fixed in respect of the land in question, the application for change of khata is rejected. He submits, the petitioner may be directed to file fresh application for fixing up kandayam and thereafter seek transfer of khata.

The stand taken by the Government is wholly improper. The contentions so urged are rejected.

The petitioner has shown he has acquired the property in question and in proof of it, he filed copy of Annexure A sale deed before the competent authority i.e., the Tahsildar who is the 4th respondent in this case u/s 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short ''Act''), which is in fulfillment of the requirement of section 128 of the Act instead of considering the representation he has failed to exercise statutory duty. Instead, the 5th respondent Revenue Inspector has issued an endorsement vide Annexure-B. There is no explanation as to why the 4th respondent has failed to perform his statutory duty to record the transaction of sale which is the mode of acquisition referred to in section 128 of the Act. The inaction on the part of the Tahsildar could hardly be appreciated which is wholly unsustainable because the request of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of section 128 and 129 of the Act. No reason is assigned as to why khata cannot be changed in the name of the petitioner. Secondly.- non-fixing of kandayam cannot be a ground for refusal to change of khata. Fixing of kandayam is the duty of the Revenue officer and if they have failed to do so, the petitioner cannot be denied the request to enter as khatedar based on Annexure-A.

In the circumstances, Annexure-B is quashed. Respondent No. 4 who is the prescribed authority under the Act is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for change of khata and to pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Learned Government Advocate Mr. R.B. Sathyanarayana is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.