AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prasanna B. Varale, CJ
Learned counsel appearing for the Complainant grieves that though some documents toward allotting the land to the Ex-Serviceman, till date no steps are taken to deliver possession. Learned Additional Government Advocate banking upon the compliance affidavit seeks dropping of this proceedings. We are absolutely dissatisfied with the course of events which are reflected from the records.
he complainant served as a Warrant Officer in the Army from 13.05.1968 to 01.06.1990 and participated in the Indo-Pak War of 1971. He has been awarded Gallantry Awards and Gold Medals by the President of India. He has fighting the legal battle and now he is at the age of 83 years. The defence service is a yeomen service to the country. A society which does not recognize and respect the soldiers and Ex-Serviceman would cut a sorry figure in the mind of right thinking people and we do not appreciate that. We are not at all happy with the approach of the Accused/Respondent who is the Deputy Commissioner of the District, to say the least.
The Endorsement produced along with compliance affidavit reads as under:-
“The Tahsildar must take appropriate actions, as per Form-7, under Rule 29 of Karnataka land Grant Rules 1969, to register the name in the pahani and to provide the Saguvali Chiti. Thereafter the Assistant Director of land Records must take appropriate action to conduct the phodi related works of the said land. While handing over the property to the grantee the Tahsildar has right to impose appropriate conditions after considering the situation there at place where the land is situated, and the grantee is bound to follow these conditions imposed.”
Considering the above observations, we direct the Accused/Respondents to take immediate steps to handover the possession of subject land to the Complainant and make mutation of entries in the Revenue Records within an outer limit of two weeks from today. The compliance shall be reported to the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks next following, failing which, it is open to the complainant to seek revival of this compliant whereupon we shall be summoning not only the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District but also the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka.
With the above direction, this Complaint of Contempt is disposed off. Notice is discharged.
The Registry shall send a copy of this order by speed post to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, immediately.