N GANGADHARA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this matter was heard on 23.4.2019, an order was passed directing the present Joint Director of Land Records Smt. Kusumalatha P.S. to carry out correction in survey record of land bearing SY.No.62/1C of Devasandra Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Today she would bring to the notice of this Court the correction carried out by her in Tippani book as well as Akarband and Pakka book of Sy.No.62/1C of Devasandra Village, in rectifying the mistake which was done by some of the Officers of Survey Department in the year 1999. As could be seen from the records, the location of the aforesaid land was disturbed in changing its position as it stood in the survey records on 14.03.1981, in wrongfully showing that the same as moved from its original position to its right and the same being placed on kalmaratti kharab portion in the said land.

(2.) This Court would place on record its appreciation for the interest shown by learned Addl. Advocate General Sri Dinesh Rao, without his intervention the aforesaid correction would definitely not have taken place within such short span of time. This Court would also place on record its appreciation for the correction work carried out by the present JDLR.

(3.) In this proceedings the petitioner has filed an affidavit on 8.4.2019, complaining that, the previous JDLR K.Jayaprakash whom petitioner had approached seeking correction to the wrongful entry made in the year 1999. The allegation of the petitioner is that the then JDLR had demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner as bribe to rectify the mistake committed by earlier officers in the year 1999. It is also stated that in the absence of petitioner fulfilling his demand the said person vengefully created records in such a manner that as if the entire exercise which he did in confirming the wrongful entry made during 1999 is pursuant to a report submitted by the Tahsildar, thereafter the same being approved by the Government. The aforesaid conduct of the officer shows the ingenuity with which he would operate in shifting the responsibility for his work on others, simultaneously projecting himself as an honest officer.