SRI K S RAVINDRANATH vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.58705-707/2015 AND 11229/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. Sri. K.S.Ravindranath,

Aged about 58 years,

Son of Late Sri. K.N.S.Iyengar,

Residing at NO.34,

“Divya”, III Cross,

Malleshwaram,

Bangalore – 560 003.

Aged about 64 years,

Son of Late Sri. G.N.Narayan Rao,

Residing at “Santhrupthi”,

II Cross, Gandhinagar,

Shimoga – 577 202.

Aged about 60 years,

Son of Late Sri. G.N.Narayan Rao,

Residing at “Santhrupthi”,

II Cross, Gandhinagar,

Shimoga – 577 202.

Aged about 62 years,

Residing at “Santhrupthi”,

II Cross, Gandhinagar,

Shimoga – 577 202. …PETITIONERS

(By Shri T.S.Amar Kumar, Advocate)

AND:

By its Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department,

M.S.Building,

Ambedkar Veedhi,

Bangalore – 560 001.

Mysore District,

Mysore – 577 001.

Mysore Taluk,

Mysore – 577 001.

Land Records,

Office of the Deputy Commissioner,

Mysore.

[respondent no.4 impleaded

Vide court order dated 23.4.2016] …RESPONDENTS

3 (By Shri Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents) *****

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the third respondent to dispose of the application filed/sent by the petitioners on 19.3.2015 at Annexure-K, legal notice dated 18.5.2015 Annexure-L and letters dated 22.6.2015 and 10.9.2015 at Annexure-M and M1.

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate. 2. The facts are, the petitioners claim to be the absolute owners in possession of land bearing Sy.No.75 of Goblikatte measuring 12 acre 9 guntas situated at Goblikatte, Mysore. The said property originally belonged to Shrikandatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar. The said property was said to have been attached by the Income Tax authorities on account of non- payment of income tax by the said Wadiyar. Thereafter, a

4 public auction was proposed to be conducted on 27.10.1993 in respect of which a proclamation of sale dated 24.09.1993 was issued. The Revenue Officer, Corporation of Mysore had addressed a letter to the Income Tax Officer, Nazarabad indicating that the Income Tax Department could not sell the property in question on the plea that the property belonged to the public. The same was considered under the Income Tax Act by the competent authorities and an order was passed dated 16.12.1993 rejecting the objection raised by the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation. After such rejection, the public auction was conducted on 19.01.1994 in which the petitioners were the successful bidders. They had paid the full consideration and a sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners, which was confirmed by an order dated 23.03.1994. In the meanwhile, the Corporation of the City of Mysore had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.23641/1994 before this Court against the Income Tax Department, seeking quashing of the sale proceedings pursuant to the sale proclamation. This Court,

5 by its order dated 12.09.1995, dismissed the petition with costs and with liberty to the petitioner therein to file a civil suit, if they are aggrieved by the action. Thereafter, the Corporation had abandoned the proceedings. No civil suit was filed. On the other hand, after much delay, the Income Tax Department had ultimately executed a sale certificate dated 15.06.2005 which was duly registered with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed an application on 6.5.2006 seeking change of revenue entries in respect of the property before the third respondent along with necessary documents. In spite of repeated follow up and remainders, the third respondent has not taken any further action to change the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners. Writ petitions were filed before this Court seeking directions to dispose of the application for change of revenue entries in W.P.No.23800/2012 and W.P.26485-87/2012. This Court had allowed the petitions by an order dated 17.12.2013 and these petitions were filed on account of Income Tax Department having raised an objection

6 which was not tenable after having sold the property to the petitioners. The respondents had thereafter challenged that order by way of an appeal in W.A.No.1254/2014 and connected appeals. The same were also disposed of as withdrawn. In the meanwhile, the revenue authorities have not complied with the order of this Court directing consideration of the application for change of revenue entries and therefore, contempt proceedings were initiated before this Court. The respondents had complied with the order by filing an affidavit. After the change of Record of Rights in the name of the petitioners, the petitioners had then requested for survey and fixing the boundaries as per the sketch annexed to the sale certificate. The respondents it appears, have not taken any steps to conduct the survey for fixing the boundaries. Further, it was also noticed that in the Record of Rights, one Mr. Karim’s name is shown in Column No.9 who has no manner of right, title and interest in the property. Further, the extent in Column No.9 and the total extent of land does not tally with the measurements shown in

7 the Record of Rights. Therefore, the petitioners have sought rectification of these apparent errors in the entries in the Record of Rights, since this would be carried into the survey report in fixing the boundaries which would result in further confounding the entries. Therefore, the petitioners had sought for rectification in the first instance before the survey is carried out. In spite of it, there is no further response from the respondents. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Since this matter has been hanging fire over the past several years, it is inexplicable that the respondents should choose to ignore the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to carry out the rectifications in the Record of Rights if they are found to be errors apparent and thereafter, to carry out the survey work in fixing the boundaries as per the sketch annexed to the sale certificate, in accordance with law. The Tahsildar in tandem with the ADLR shall carry out the work as aforesaid.

8 This exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned counsel would submit that in the grounds of the petition, the third respondent has been inadvertently referred to as the second respondent. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioners is permitted to carry out the corrections accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE