Disposed

Sri P Vishwanath v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2013WP/16326/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of an endorsement issued by the BBMP for clarifying discrepancies in sale and gift deeds regarding property title. The court granted liberty to file a reply before deciding on production of a rectified deed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a proper reply. Respondents to consider such reply and decide whether to insist on a rectification deed based on the explanation provided.

Sri P Vishwanath Vs the Commissioner — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶5

W.P. No. 16326/2013 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

¶8

Sri. P VISHWANATH S/O. PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A. No. 10 NEW GURUPPANAPALYA P. CROSS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 029. … PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. A RAMACHANDRA, ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE – 560 009.

¶13

ASST. REVENUE OFFICER JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION WARD No. 64 (OLD)

¶14

¶15

BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE BANGALORE – 560 011. … RESPONDENTS

¶16

(By Sri. B V MURALIDHAR, ADV., FOR R-1 & 2)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.10.2011 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the

¶22

nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 24.10.2011 –

¶23

Annexure G issued by respondent No. 2.

¶24

On the basis of two registered gift deeds dated 30.09.2006

¶25

and 20.06.2011 the petitioner approached respondents to enter his

¶26

name as kathedar in respect of property covered under the two gift deeds. These two gift deeds are executed by one Smt. Kanakamma.

¶27

¶28

According to the petitioner Smt. Kanakamma acquired the property in question under a registered sale deed dated 29.05.1982. The respondent BBMP noticed the discrepancy in the boundaries in the sale deed and two gift deeds. Accordingly the impugned endorsement is issued to the petitioner to clarify and to produce a rectified deed to consider the claim for transfer of katha. Hence, this

¶29

writ petition.

¶30

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire

¶31

writ papers.

¶32

Admittedly there are certain discrepancies in the sale deed of the year 1982 and the two gift deeds relied on by the petitioner. In the event of the petitioner placing acceptable explanation the respondent shall not insist upon producing a rectification deed. If the explanation is not satisfactory then the respondents may call upon the petitioner to produce a rectification deed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file proper reply to the impugned endorsement. If

¶33

¶34

such a reply is filed by the petitioner then the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ

¶35

petition is hereby disposed off.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE.

¶37

LRS.

Sri P Vishwanath v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Vishwanath v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Green View Welfare Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt K Neelamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Amaresha Babu Vs the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri K S Doreswamy Vs City Municipal Council

Mrs Shanthi Clara D Souza W/O Gracian Ravi D Souza Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri P v Uday Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike