Writ Petition No. 26232 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1451 WP No. 26232 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 26232 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. V.H. RAVI S/O. LATE HONNAGIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. VALAGEREHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428. (BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428.
Legal Reasoning
by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.5436/1998. 6. It is evident from the records that the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, had issued a communication dated 17.09.2016, as evidenced in Annexure-E, directing the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, to conduct a survey and carry out durasthi pertaining to the petitioner's land. Despite this clear direction, no substantial action has been taken by the jurisdictional Tahsildar for nearly nine years. The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), during the hearing, submitted that this matter has been listed before the Court for the first time and sought some concession to allow the fourth respondent to process the petitioner’s representations, as reflected in Annexures-D, F, and G. 7. However, this Court, taking into consideration the extensive delay and inaction on the part of the revenue authorities, is not inclined to grant the requested concession. The pattern of seeking indulgence by government advocates in such cases is becoming all too frequent. The Courts, in their - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1451 WP No. 26232 of 2024 leniency, have often permitted such errant officers to evade accountability, which only emboldens further inaction and perpetuates inefficiency. The inordinate delay of almost nine years in acting upon the Deputy Commissioner’s direction reflects a lackadaisical attitude that cannot be excused or overlooked. 8. The behavior of the revenue authorities in this matter warrants strict scrutiny and decisive action. It is disheartening to note that the jurisdictional Tahsildars, entrusted with significant administrative responsibilities, have failed to address the petitioner’s grievance despite clear directives and the submission of relevant representations. This Court emphasizes that such lethargy on the part of public officials undermines public trust and confidence in the administrative machinery. As custodians of their respective jurisdictions, officers such as the Tahsildar are constitutionally mandated to discharge their duties diligently, ensuring adherence to the rules and regulations. 9. When a citizen submits representations supported by title documents and judicial pronouncements rendered by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1451 WP No. 26232 of 2024 constitutional Courts, the revenue officials are duty-bound to act promptly and pass reasoned orders. Failure to do so is not only a dereliction of duty but also a breach of the constitutional principles of accountability and responsiveness. Allowing such officers to continue with their nonchalance would set a dangerous precedent and erode the credibility of the administrative system. 10. In the present case, the revenue authorities cannot raise any further doubts regarding the genuineness of the grant in question. The records clearly indicate that the original grantee had already invoked the provisions of the PTCL Act, for restoration of the land. This itself creates a presumption in favor of the grant's authenticity. Additionally, the petitioner, being the fourth purchaser of the land, as stated in paragraph No.1 of the writ petition, has a rightful claim that deserves to be addressed without undue delay. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that a writ of mandamus is not only appropriate but necessary to compel the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, to discharge their statutory obligations. Moreover, the fourth respondent must be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1451 WP No. 26232 of 2024 held accountable for their inaction and made liable for the cost of this litigation, which has arisen solely due to their failure to act in a timely and diligent manner. Public officials must remember that their positions are not merely ceremonial but come with responsibilities that are enforceable under the law. This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to impose costs on the fourth respondent to ensure accountability and deter such conduct in the future. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passed the following:
Arguments
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1451 WP No. 26232 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-MANDYA DISTRICT - RESPONDENT NO.2 AND THE TAHSILDAR-MADDUR TALUK-RESPONDENT NO.4 TO EFFECT DURASTH OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND, AS SOUGHT FOR IN REPRESENTATIONS DATED 25.08.2016, 07.03.2022, 15.03.2022 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURES-D F AND G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This is a classic case where 4th respondent/Thasildar is not even inclined to advert to the representations submitted by the petitioner where a request is made to conduct survey and durasthi in so far as petitioner's land is concerned. 2. Therefore, the captioned petition is filed seeking mandamus against the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner and 4th respondent/Thasildar to effect durasthi of petitioner's land by considering petitioner's representations dated 25.08.2016, 07.03.2022 and 15.03.2022 respectively. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1451 WP No. 26232 of 2024 3. The facts reveal that an extent of land measuring 01 acre in Sy.No.203 of Gejjalagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Madduru Taluk, was granted in favour of one Smt. Hombalamma on an upset price under darkasth dated 30.11.1961. The said original grantee (Smt. Hombalamma) sold petition land to one Linge gowda vide registered sale deed dated 20.05.1972 who in turn sold to Karikunte Boregowda vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.1972. The legal representatives of Karikunte Boregowda in turn sold it to petitioner under registered sale deed dated 28.02.2011. 4. These details averred in paragraph No.1 of the writ petition clearly reveal that property has changed several hands and the petitioner being the last purchaser has acquired title over the petition land. The records also reveal that the legal representatives of original grantee initiated proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short referred to as 'PTCL Act'). 5. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act and ordered for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1451 WP No. 26232 of 2024 restoration of the land to the grantees family. This order was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.686/1998, which is confirmed
Decision
ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The 4th respondent/Tahsildar is forthwith directed to take cognizance of the directions issued by second respondent/Deputy Commissioner evidenced at Annexure - E and shall pass appropriate orders on the representations submitted by petitioner evidenced at Annexures - D, F and G respectively. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1451 WP No. 26232 of 2024 (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The 4th respondent/Tahsildar shall deposit cost of Rs.15,000/- to the 'Advocate's Benevolent fund', High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. (v) This compliance shall be reported by learned High Court Government Pleader within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12