B.R. NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 3 acres 38 guntas of land in Chandrashekharapura village, Bengaluru South Taluk. The said land was granted in favour of his grandfather by the then Mysore Maharaja in the year 1911 and regranted in the year 1958 in favour of his father and his father had paid the necessary upset price also. The rashidi patta issued reflects the name of the father of the petitioner as the owner of the property. Further, by virtue of the order passed in ILR 44/58-59, the mutation entry records the name of the father of the petitioner as the owner of the property. RTCs for the period from 1971-72 to 1976-77 also reflects the same. After the demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner requested for change of revenue entries in his name. As the same was not considered, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.6495/2013. This Court directed the revenue authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the same, respondent no.4 issued an endorsement dtd. 13/2/2015 bearing [xxxxxxxxxxxx] (vide Annexure-Q to the writ petition), wherein it is stated that as per the report of Taluk Surveyor, the land is a tank area, and accordingly, khatha cannot be done in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement before respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, who on the ground that uncertified copies of the RTCs appear to be interpolated, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The petitioner rely upon the grant certificate, order of regrant, rashidi patta, mutation order and RTCs mentioned above and contend that the land is neither a government land nor a tank bed, but it is his private property and prays for quashing of the impugned endorsement issued by respondent no.4 and the order passed by respondent no.3 and prays that a direction be issued to respondent no.4 to issue khatha in his favour.

(3.) Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents contends that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are bogus and concocted and for that reason, the orders under challenge have been passed. She further contends that the land concerned is a tank area and does not belong to the petitioner.