(BY SRIYUTHS C VINAY SWAMY & S K SHETTY,ADVOCATES) v. (BY SRI.R.B.SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP)

SRI KUNJAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA HOSKOTE VILLAGE KOTE KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE 562 114 ..PETITIONER (BY SRIYUTHS C VINAY SWAMY & S K SHETTY,ADVOCATES) AND: 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE -560 001. 2 2 THE TAHSILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.B.SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE COMPUTERIZED RTC FOR THE PERIOD 1997 TO 2011 IN RESPECT OF 0.22 GUNTAS LAND IN SY.NO.108/1, DANDUPALYA VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. THIS PETITION COMING ON ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Though matter is listed in orders list by consent of learned advocates appearing for parties same is taken up for final disposal. 3

Heard Sri.S.K.Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.

Petitioner is seeking for a mandamus to second respondent to issue computerised RTC for the period 1997- 2011 in respect of land measuring 0.22 guntas in Sy.No.108/1, Dandupalya Village, .Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

Petitioner claims that he was granted 0.22 guntas of land in Sy.No.108/1, Dandupalya Village, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District as per order dated 09.12.1968 passed by first respondent and subsequently grant certificate has also been issued in his favour on 21.03.1972. Petitioner claim that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property pursuant to the said grant and also claims that 4 upset price to which the land was granted was also waived. Petitioner submits that from the date of allotment till 1997 entries have been made in RTC extracts which reflects name of petitioner and to evidence this fact he has produced RTC extract for the said period collectively as Annexure-D. On account of computerisation of revenue records petitioner claims to have submitted application for issuance of computerised RTC reflecting his name and on account of non furnishing the same petitioner is said to have submitted a representation dated 11.03.2010 which is acknowledged by second respondent on 08.07.2010 as per Annexure-E. Inspite of such representation having been submitted it is contended that computerisation RTC has not been issued. As such petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent No.2 for issuance of computerised RTC.

Admittedly representation submitted by petitioner dated 11.03.2010 is received by second respondent on 5

08.07.2010 and same is not considered or disposed of. I do not see any impediment for second respondent to issue computerised RTC in favour of petitioner in respect of land above referred to particularly in the background of having been petitioner's name entered in the revenue records for the years 1968 to 1997 as per Annexure-D.

However, in view of the fact that petitioner has now given a representation to second respondent to issue computerised RTC it would suffice if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider said representation dated

11.03.2010 Annexure-E within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and issue computerised RTC if there is no impediment under law or alternatively issue an endorsement to the petitioner assigning reasons for not issuing said computerised RTC. Accordingly writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 6 Sri.R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today. Sd/- JUDGE SBN