M ASHOK KUMAR S/O C MOHAN; C MOHAN S/O CHOUTOLAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; SPL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are before this Court seeking to declare the decision taken by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 22.2.2013 annexure M on subjects 1 and 2 in respect of Sy.Nos.13 & 14 pertaining to their lands in Nagareshwara Nagenahalli, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring 2 acres wherein the District Level Committee has directed respondents 3 to 4 to hold an inquiry in relation to the alleged irregularity found in the Register for issuance of grant certificate pertaining to the said lands, is without authority of law and jurisdiction and also the decision is null and void abinitio; to quash both the orders dated 13.3.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner/2nd respondent at annexures N1 and N2 as arbitrary and illegal and to issue a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to verify and carry out phod in relation to petitioners' land in Sy.No.13 and 14 of Nagareshwara Nagenahalli Village of K R Puram measuring 2 acres each belonging to the 2nd petitioner.

(2.) The 2nd petitioner who is the father of the 1st petitioner is said to have purchased 2 acres each in Sy.No.13 and 14 under two registered sale deeds from the erstwhile grantee viz., Chanamma and Chanappa and petitioners also have moved this Court seeking for a direction to carry out mutation and other related work by the respondent authorities and also sought for change of mutation entries in the name of the 2nd petitioner. In the process, according to the petitioners, they have moved this Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to verify and to make entries in the revenue records, according to law. Despite that, since 1997 up to 2010, no such entries were made. Ultimately, according to the petitioners, during 2010 taking into consideration the fact situation, this Court had directed to carry out mutation work pursuant to the right accrued to the petitioners based on the registered sale deeds which was of the year 1996-97 and thereafter, when once again the petitioners sought for phod to be done, raising several queries, doubting the very grant itself, the authorities have passed some orders and have taken different view although the grant orders is available and maintained by the revenue department. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard the counsel representing the parties.