Sri. D.C. Nagaraja vs The State of Karnataka

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 12.3.2013 vide Annexure-''U''. By the impugned endorsement at Annexure-''U'', the second respondent has informed the petitioner that his application to enter the name in the pahani in respect of Sy. No. 104/p1 of Hoovinayakanahalli village measuring 2 acres has been disposed of as original documents have not been produced.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The petitioner claims that 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 104 of Hoovinayakanahalli village was granted in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore district Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk, has issued grant certificate as per Annexure ''B'' on 12.8.1979. The petitioner has filed applications dated 29.12.2005 and 17.6.2008 for effecting khatha. Khatha was not transferred. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court in W.P. No. 41361/2012. This Court has directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner by order dated 2.11.2012. Thereafter, the second respondent by order dated 5.2.2013 has ordered to effect katha in the name of the petitioner in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 104/p1 of Hoovinayakanahalli village and to enter the name of the petitioner in the pahani. Instead of implementing the order dated 5.2.2013, the second respondent has issued endorsement at Annexure-''U''. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the second respondent having ordered to effect katha in the name of the petitioner in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 104/p1 of Hoovinayakanahalli village as per Annexure-''T'', has issued endorsement at Annexure-''U'' which is totally incorrect. He also submitted that the land has been granted in favour of the petitioner, saguvali chit has been issued and thereafter, the second respondent has passed order to effect katha and enter the name of the petitioner in the pahani. Instead of implementing the order, the endorsement at Annexure-''U'' has been issued which is totally incorrect and cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned Government Pleader supported the impugned endorsement.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned endorsement can be sustained in law?

It is relevant to note, 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 104 of Hoovinayakanahalli village has been granted in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure ''A''. Thereafter, saguvali chit has been issued as per Annexure ''B'' on 12.8.1979. The petitioner has filed application for transfer of katha and to enter his name in the revenue records. The application has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P. No. 41361/2012. This Court has directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed order as per Annexure ''T'' to transfer khatha and enter the name of the petitioner in the pahani in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 104/p1 of Hoovinayakanahalli village. Subsequently, the second respondent has issued endorsement at Annexure ''U'' stating that the application is disposed of as original documents are not produced. In view of the order at Annexure-''T'', the endorsement at Annexure-''U'' cannot be sustained in law. The second respondent instead of implementing the order dated 5.2.2013 vide Annexure-''T'', has issued endorsement at Annexure-''U'' which cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement at Annexure-''U'' is hereby quashed. The second respondent is directed to implement the order dated 5.2.2013 vide Annexure-''T'', within two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.