LALITHAMMA N D/O. NARAYANAPPA. A, W/O SUDHAKAR K. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 AND THE TAHSILDAR GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner and Sri. Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent. Perused the records made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate during the course of the arguments. The focal issue in this writ petition revolves around non -issuance of residential certificate to the petitioner who claims to be resident of Darinayakanapalya, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chickaballapur District.

(2.) PETITIONER contends that she was born at Darinayakanapalya in the year 1984 and has pursued her studies at Adiramaiah High School, and studied at Composite P.U. College in the same village. She also claims that her name is found in the voters list of said village for the year 2002 and even after she got married in the year 2004 she has continued to reside in the said village. She contends in order to apply for allotment of Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LPG Distributorship as per notification dated 30.03.2012 she sought for issuance of residential certificate by the Tahsildar - second respondent, who considered the application filed by petitioner and has issued an endorsement dated 12.04.2012 at Annexure -L rejecting her request. It is this endorsement which is impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) PER contra, learned Government Advocate who has made available the records by the second respondent for perusal of this court would support the impugned endorsement at Annexure -L by contending that on an application submitted by petitioner for grant of Residential Certificate jurisdictional Revenue Inspector has conducted a spot enquiry and found that petitioner is not a resident of Darinayakana Palya but she is a resident of Vadenahalli Village and on the basis of the said report Tahsildar has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner, which does not call for interference by this Court and as such he seeks for dismissal of Writ Petition.