- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.22655 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE K.V. GOVINDASHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT: V.G. COMPLEX, OPP. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, B.M.ROAD, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130. 2. SRI. G. VENKATESH S/O LATE K.V. GOVINDASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT: "NIKHIL", D-GROUP LAYOUT, K.R.S. AGRAHARA, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU REGION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, B.M.T.C. BUILDINGS, II FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU SUB - DIVISION, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 4. THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK, KUNIGAL, TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 130. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02ND DECEMBER, 2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-G; DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS IN THEIR REPRESENTATIONS DATED 04TH MARCH, 2013 VIDE ANNEXURES 'D' AND 'D1' FOR MAKING 'DURASTH' OF THEIR LANDS BEARING SURVEY NOS.3 TO AN EXTENT OF 4 ACRE AND THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.4 TO AN EXTENT OF 2 ACRE 20 GUNTAS OF KENKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT AS REQUESTED BY THEM FORTHWITH. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing endorsement dated 02nd December, 2016 (Annexure-G) issued by the respondent No.4; inter alia sought for direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the representations of petitioners dated 04th March, 2013 (Annexures 'D' and 'D1') for conducting Durasthi of the land in question. 2. The facts in nutshell for adjudication of the this writ petition are that, Late K.V. Govindashetty, father of petitioners had purchased the land bearing Survey No.3 of Kenkere Village, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District, to an extent of 4 acres in separate Sale Deeds and the details relating to the purchase of land have been provided in the writ petition. It is contended by the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 had purchased land to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.4 of said Kenkere Village belonging to one Sri. Dodda Rangaiah S/o Rangaiah. It is also stated that the petitioner No.1 had purchased another land to an extent of 1 acre in Survey No.4 of said Kenkere Village from the said Dodda Rangaiah as per the Sale Deed produced at Annexure-A10. Further, it is stated that the father of the petitioners had expired and as such, the joint - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 family properties were partitioned amongst the members of the joint family of the petitioners and the land in question bearing Survey No.4 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas and 1 acre have been allotted to the share of the petitioners. 3. It is also stated that the petitioners have made a representations dated 04th March, 2013 (Annexures 'D' and 'D1') to the respondent No.4 to conduct Durasthi in respect of the land in question pursuant to acquiring the title through partition Deed, however, the said representations have not been considered by the respondent-Authorities and as such, petitioners have filed Writ Petition Nos.48692 of 2014 and 49571 of 2014. This Court, by order dated 02nd June, 2015 (Annexure-F), in the aforesaid writ petition, directed the respondent-Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk to consider the aforesaid representations within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the order. It is also forthcoming from the averments made in the writ petition that the respondent- Authorities have not complied with the above said order passed by this Court and as such, the contempt petition was filed before this Court in C.C.C. (Civil) No.806 of 2016. Thereafter, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 the respondent No.4 had issued impugned endorsement dated 02nd December, 2016 (Annexure-G) stating that the relevant documents are not available in the office of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar and as such, permission is required from the District Level Records Missing Committee to build up the records and Durasthi work will be conducted thereafter. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that the petitioners have challenged the said endorsement dated 02nd December, 2016 in Writ Petition No.13728 of 2017 and this Court, by order dated 18th April, 2017, dismissed the petition as premature and thereafter, this writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.4 inter alia, sought for direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the representations made by the petitioners dated 04th March, 2013 (Annexures 'D' and 'D1). 4. Heard Sri. Ramesh K.R., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 5. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, by order dated 28th April, 2025, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk is present before the Court. 6. Sri. Ramesh K.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that, though the land in question has been purchased by the father of the petitioners, the Durasthi of the land in question has not been made in respect of the same and as such, the petitioners have already approached this Court in two writ petitions and despite the same, no action has been taken by the respondent-Authorities. It is also contended by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.4 is with regard to referring the matter to the District Level Records Missing Committee since the documents produced by the petitioners does not tally with the records available in the office of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar and the said endorsement is to be quashed as the father of the petitioners had produced all the details in respect of extent of land and also all the registered documents including the registered Sale Deeds before the respondent No.4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners, by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 referring to the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 18th April, 2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.13728 of 2017, contended that, though the direction was issued long back to the District Level Records Missing Committee to build up the records, however, same has not been done till date. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents contended that the petitioners have not produced the relevant documents to compare with the extent of land belonging to the petitioners as well as the records available in the office of the respondent No.4 and therefore, the Durasthi has not been conducted till date. 8. Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners herein have filed Writ Petition Nos.48692 of 2014 and 49571 of 2014 and this Court, by order dated 02nd June, 2015, had directed the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders within an outer limit of six months. Since, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 no action has been taken by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar as directed by this Court, contempt proceedings was filed before this Court and thereafter the impugned endorsement dated 02nd December, 2016 (Annexure-G) has been issued by the respondent No.4, stating that the concurrence of the District Level Records Missing Committee is required to conduct Durasthi in respect of the land in question. 9. Undisputedly, the impugned endorsement was issued on 02nd December, 2016 and perusal of the writ petition would indicate that the District Level Records Missing Committee has not taken any decision for more than eight years in respect of the land in question, which is per se a contempt on behalf of the respondent-Authorities. 10. The respondent No.4-Tahsildar is present before this Court and undertook that the Durasthi of the land in question will be conducted in compliance of the order dated 02nd June, 2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.48692 of 2014 and 49571 of 2014 and order dated 18th April, 2017 passed in Writ Petition No.13728 of 2017. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 11. At this juncture, it is also required to consider the observation made by this Court in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 18th April, 2017 passed in Writ Petition No.13728 of 2017, which reads as follows: "3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the Tahsildar by the impugned endoresement was of the view that the documents produced by the petitioners presently, do not tally with the Government records. Therefore, the same was referred to the District Level Records Missing Committee in order to build up the records. As and when such an act is completed, the same would stand referable to the documentation produced by the petitioners." emphasis supplied 12. Perusal of the observation made by this Court in the aforesaid order would indicate that the respondent-Authorities have perused all the relevant documents from the petitioners and as such, it is forthcoming that the comparison of the documents has been made by the respondent-Authorities. In that view of the matter, I do not accept the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents that the petitioners have not produced acceptable documents. Therefore, considering the undertaking made by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18621 WP NO.22655 OF 2019 the respondent No.4-Tahisidlar, Kunigal Taluk, who is present before the Court today, respondents 2 to 6 are directed to conduct Durasthi in respect of the land in question, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. It is also made clear that the respondents have appraised of the fact that this is the third writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking Durasthi of the land in question and same has not been conducted for more than ten years. 14. In that view of the matter, order 02nd December, 2016 (Annexure-G) issued by the respondent No.4 is hereby quashed as the respondents 2 to 6 have to reconsider the issue afresh in accordance with law. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54