Sri. Raju M. Varghese and Sri. Kuriyan Verghese vs The State of Karnataka

Aravind Kumar

Heard Sri. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. P.M. Varadaraj for petitioner and Sri. Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. Petitioner is seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to fourth respondent to incorporate new Survey No. 150 as per direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 02.06.2010 - Annexure-G to fourth respondent.

First Petitioner claims to have purchased land in Survey No 28/P4 situated at Bairati Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring 30 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 07.02.2004 - Annexure -A and second petitioner claims to have purchased same extent under sale deed dated 07.02.2004 which is at Annexure-B. Pursuant to the said sale deeds mutation in the revenue records have taken place as per MR No. 41 and 42/2003-04.

Thereafter fourth respondent - Tahsildar by forwarding a report dated 16.07.2004 to the second respondent has requested to initiate proceedings u/s 136 (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and after considering the material on record and the documents produced by petitioners herein proceedings came to be dropped by order dated 23.03.2012 -Annexure-E by second respondent and entries made in the revenue records came to be affirmed by holding that they are not illegal. Second respondent is said to have issued direction to fourth respondent on 02.06.2010 to conduct phodi-durasti in respect of the lands purchased by petitioners No. 1 and 2 and assign the new Survey No. 150 after carrying out the said exercise. On account of non-compliance of the direction petitioner has approached this court for issue of writ of mandamus. Admittedly, petitioner has not approached the fourth respondent at any point of time and has sought for direction to fourth respondent to implement a direction issued by the second respondent. No material has been placed before this court as to what steps fourth respondent has taken subsequent to the said direction issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 02.06.2010 under Annexure-G. In the absence of such material and in the absence of petitioner approaching the fourth respondent for redressal of his grievance, if any, this court cannot entertain the prayer made in present writ petition and it would be needless to observe that if any administrative instructions or directions is issued by second respondent to fourth respondent the same is required to be complied. With these observations writ petition stands dismissed.