SANNA DYAVANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the land in question situate at Hagaluru village, Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari District. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner has inherited the said land from his ancestors. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the name of the father of the petitioner was reflected in the revenue records till the year 2000 and thereafter, due to computerization of the RTC records, the name of the petitioner's father was not reflected in the revenue records and therefore, the petitioner made a representation dtd. 17/12/2014 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) to respondent No.4. In the meanwhile, the Revenue Authorities, by impugned order dtd. 16/10/2021, have issued an endorsement rejecting the application made by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner - respondent No.2 herein and the respondent No.2 herein, by order dtd. 21/9/2022, rejected the appeal made by the petitioner herein. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Smt. V. Vidya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the name of the father of the petitioner was continuously reflected in the RTC extracts till the year 2000 and thereafter, it was not continued and hence, non-consideration of the representation by the respondent Authorities, is not correct. She further contended that there is no dispute with regard to the title of the land in question and in that view of the matter, the Revenue Authorities ought not to have issued the impugned endorsement.