YELLAPPA S/O LATE SRI NALLAPPA Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for the allowing reliefs: a) issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writs end to quash the impugned order dt.31 -03 -1997 passed by the 3rd Respondent authority in case No. LRF(83) 1003/1990 -91, as per Annexure -"Y" and M.R. No. 75/07 -08, dt.08 -06 -2008 passed by the 4th Respondent Tahasildar as per 2007 -08 RRT dt.28 -10 -2008 Annexure -W & X, Memo dated 08 -09 -2008 in No. RRT.CR 287/2008 -09 issued by the 3rd Respondent as per Annexure -"XE" endorsement dt.30 -09 -2008 in No. RRT(BH)CR 136/2008 -09, issued by the 4th Respondent as per Anexure -"AF" and further declare that, revenue entries made in the name of the Government to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas out of 4 Acres 36 Guntas in Sy. No. 56 of Singasandra Village by removing the name of the petitioner without initiating any proceedings and without passing orders thereon are illegal & void. And all further proceedings that are totally contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice. b) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing 4th Respondent to restore M.R. No. 2/2001 -02 standing in the name of the petitioner to the extent of 1 Acre 30 Guntas in Sy. No. 56 of Singasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk.

(2.) THE of the petitioner is that he is entitled to an extent of 4 acres 36 guntas in Sy. No. 56 of Singasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk. In this regard, the grievance is with regard to the reduction of the extent in the revenue entries by reversing the entries which existed in the name of the petitioner. It is contended that as against the entitlement to the extent of 4 acres 36 guntas, the same has been reduced by 1 acre 30 guntas and therefore, the petitioner claims restoration of the same. In this regard, it is contended that with regard to the earlier proceedings of restoration of the land to the original grantees for violation of PTCL Act, the proceedings indicated that an extent of 4 acres 36 was restored. Subsequently, the petitioner contends that he has purchased the property under the Sale Deed dated 11.10.2001, which is as per Annexure -'P', under which the extent of 4 acres 36 guntas has been conveyed. In this regard, it is also contended that prior to the said sale, an appropriate permission had been obtained as per Annexure -IJ' and thereafter the purchase has been made.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the sale deed and the documents to indicate the right of the vendors of the petitioner, would contend that all the said documents indicate the extent as 4 acres 36 guntas and even the mutation had been effected. The reversal of the mutation itself is without notice Lo the petitioner and in any event, while reducing the extent, the petitioner was entitled to be heard so that the petitioner could have put forth the appropriate documents to secure right to the entire extent of 4 acres 36 guntas. In this regard, specific reference is made to Annexure 'AD' namely, the report submitted by the Tahsildar to the Assistant Commissioner to contend that the Tahsildar in fact has taken note of all these aspects of the matter and has held that they are entitled to rectification and such a proposal has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner even without hearing the petitioner.