FATHIMA BEE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned HCGP takes notice for respondents No.1 to 3. Notice to other private respondents is not necessary for the following reasons;

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioners that they have approached the second respondent- Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk to enter their names in the land revenue records in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No.47/2008 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, which would also be in the interest of the private respondents.

(3.) On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing the petition papers this Court finds that although the final decree is said to be drawn on 27/4/2013, the petitioners and the private respondents have not taken any steps to get the decree entered in the land revenue records and the individual shares were not identified and names of the respective shareholders are not entered in the land revenue records. It is the contention of the petitioners that on 24/2/2022 at Annexure-E, the petitioners have given representation to the respondent-Tahsildar to enter their names in the land revenue records consequent to the final decree passed by the competent civil court in O.S.No.47/2008.