Disposed

S M Sathyanarayan v. the Assistant Revenue Officer

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2013WP/2212/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an endorsement by the Assistant Revenue Officer and direction to transfer khatha after purchasing the property. The court held that since an appeal on the same property is pending before this court, the transfer request should wait until its disposal.

What did the court decide?

Liberity to move an application in the pending appeal for appropriate orders was reserved.

S M Sathyanarayan Vs the Assistant Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WP NO 2212 OF 2013[LB-BMP]

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

S M SATHYANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O M. MOHANA RAO, R/A NO. 2581/1, 13TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, SAHAKARANAGAR "E" BLOCK, BANGALORE-560092.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri : G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1.THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER DOMLUR, BANGALORE BHRUTH MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 12TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

2.SMT. N. SHANTHA KUMARI @ N.S. KUMARI, W/O S. SHANKAR,

¶14

¶15

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O NO. 753, 13TH "A" CROSS, J.P.NAGAR SECOND PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Sri : V VISHWANATH, ADV. FOR R1 M/S.K.V.LEGAL FOR SRI MOHAMMED SADIGH, ADV. FOR R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DT.9.10.12 ISSUED BY THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER, DOMLUR, BBMP PRODUCED AT ANN-A & FURTHER DIRECT THE R1 TO CHANGE KHATHA IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY NO.124 DOMLUR SECOND STAGE, SECOND PHASE, BANGALORE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶19

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group this day, the court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated

¶23

09.10.2012, Annexure-A issued by the first respondent.

¶24

Petitioner contends that one Smt.N.Pushpavathi was

¶25

the owner of property bearing No.124, Domlur Second Stage,

¶26

¶27

Second Phase, Bangalore, Ward No.72/112 having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 05.07.2011 from the Bangalore Development Authority. The owner Smt.Pushpavathi in turn sold the property in question in favuor of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 23.07.2012. On the strength of this sale deed the petitioner approached the first respondent for transfer of khatha to his name. Under the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 09.10.2012, first respondent stated that they will consider the claim of petitioner after disposal of RFA No.1791/2010 pending on the file of this court. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement the petitioner is before this court.

¶28

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the

¶29

entire writ papers.

¶30

In the normal course, on the strength of registered sale deed the petitioner is entitled for transfer of khatha to his name. But in this case, the second respondent filed a civil suit against the original owner Pushpavathy in O.S.No.9165/2001 for

¶31

¶32

partition and the same came to be dismissed. Now the second respondent is before this court in RFA No.1791/2010 and the property in question is the subject matter of the appeal. This court recorded the undertaking given by the petitioner that he will not alienate the property in question till the disposal of the appeal. In the circumstances, in the interest of both the parties, it will be just and appropriate to wait till the disposal of RFA No.1791/2010. After disposal of RFA No.1791/2010 the petitioner

¶33

is entitled to approach the first respondent for necessary orders. In the circumstances, I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned endorsement. Accordingly the writ petition is hereby disposed of.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the property in question there is a building and there is no power supply and water supply. In the absence of khatha, petitioner is not able to secure the essential amenities like water and power to

¶35

the building in question. If that is so, liberty is reserved to move

¶36

¶37

necessary application in RFA No.1791/2010 for appropriate

¶38

orders. Sd/JUDGE. DKB

S M Sathyanarayan v. the Assistant Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S M Sathyanarayan v. the Assistant Revenue Officer

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

Vidya Vikas Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

M/S J B Hara Properties Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Nagarajaiah S/O Late Hotte Bommaiah Vs the Secretary

Mr Sadananda Bhandary Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Jagadeeshaiah K R Vs the Tumkur Urban Development Authority

Smt Prema W/O K Panduranga Rao Vs State of Karnataka