Partly allowed

Shashikala W/O. Ganapati Bhat v. Annayya Subray Bhat

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2017WP/100317/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court in preliminary hearing on writ petitions quashing orders in a land dispute, directed the lower court to permit appointment of a surveyor to measure land, instructing not to dismantle the existing house.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to permit appointment of a surveyor to measure land, instructing that instructions shall not include dismantling the existing house.

Shashikala W/O. Ganapati Bhat Vs Annayya Subray Bhat — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF MARCH 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

Writ Petition Nos.100317 - 100318 of 2014 (GM-CPC)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shashikala W/o Ganapati Bhat, Age: 74 years, Occupation: Housewife, Resident of Nadaumane, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶9

Subhadra W/o Ramachandra Hegde, Age: 54 years, Occupation: Housewife, Resident of Nadaumane, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶10

Mahalaxmi W/o Govind Hegde, Age: 52 years, Occupation: Housewife, Resident of Kuntemane, Taluk: Sirsi.

¶11

Shridhar S/o Ganapati Bhat, Age: 50 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Nadumane, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶12

Veerabhadra S/o Ganapati Bhat, Age: 45 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Nadumane, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶13

Ramachandra S/o Ganapati Bhat, Age: 42 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Nadumane, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

Prabhavati W/o Bhaskar Hegde, Age: 41 years, Occupation: Housewife, Resident of Sannagamane, Taluk: Siddapur. … Petitioners

¶16

(By Shri A.R. Hegde, Advocate) And: 1. Annayya Subray Bhat, Age: Major, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Nadumane, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶17

Seetaram W/o Devaru Bhat, Age: Major, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Nadumane, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶18

Shripad S/o Devaru Bhat, Age: Major, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Nadumane, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶19

Mahabaleshwar S/o Devaru Bhat, Age: Major, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Nadumane, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶20

Vijayalaxmi W/o Krishna Hegde, Age: Major, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Godlabeelu Heenagar, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶21

Sulochana W/o Tirumala Hegde, Age: Major, Occupation: Housewife, Resident of Matagan, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶22

Parvati W/o Ganapati Hegde, Age: Major, Occupation: Housewife, Resident of Talekere, Taluk: Siddapur.

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

Subhadra W/o Ramachandra Hegde, Age: Major, Occupation: Household, Resident of Vajagod, Taluk: Siddapur, Tyaglemane.

¶25

Shivaram S/o Subray Bhat Since deceased by LRs

¶26

Savitri W/o Shivaram Bhat, Aged about 83 years, Occupation: Housewife, Resident of Gijigini Dodmane, Siddapur Taluk.

¶27

Ramanath S/o Shivaram Bhat, Age: 62 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Shrikrupa Shanti Nagar, Yellapur Road, Sirsi.

¶28

11.Dr. Vidvan N. S. Ganapati Bhat, Aged about 58 years, Occupation: Lecturer, Resident of Guru Bharati Nar SSB College, Kavalakki Honnavar Taluk.

¶29

12.Narayan S/o Shivaram Bhat Aged about 52 Years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Gijigini Dodmane, Siddapur Taluk (N.K).

¶30

13.Radhakirshna S/o Shivaram Bhat, Aged about 50 Years, Occupation: Engineer, Resident of C1 Narayan Bhag, 53/2, Near Jhnana Deep, English Medium School, Wadagaon (B K ) Pune, Maharashtra State 411041.

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

14.Shrimati W/o Shankar, Aged about 55 years, Occupation: Housewife, Resident of Tattigadde (Handyanemath), Hukli Post, Siddapur Taluk.

¶33

15.Shridhar Shankaranarayan Sasravalli, Aged about 27 years, Occupation: Service, Resident of Sasravalli, Salekoppa Sagara, Taluk: Shimoga.

¶34

16.Harsha Shankaranarayan Sasravalli, Age: 23 Years, Occupation: Student, Resident of Sasravalli,

¶35

Salekoppa SagaraTaluk: Shimoga district.

¶36

… Respondents (By Shri S.R. Hegde, Advocate for respondent No.16. Respondents No.1 to 15 are served)

¶37

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash order dated 17.07.2013 marked at Annexure-K passed by Civil Judge at Siddapur rejecting I.A.No.15 in Ex.No.58/09. Quash order dated 14.11.13 marked at Annexure-L passed by Civil Judge at Siddapur allowing I.A.No.14 in Ex.No.58/09. Direct the DDLR Karwar to measure and identify 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.232 of Danmav Village Taluk: Siddapur, District: North Kanara, and to direct the respondents to hand over the possession of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.232 of Danmav Village Taluk: Siddapur, District: North Kanara, to the petitioners in terms of compromise decree passed in R.A.No.69/90 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Sirsi, marked at Annexure-A.

¶38

: 5 :

¶39

These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the court made the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶42

The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that earlier a surveyor had been appointed and he had filed his report. That the said report was prepared without the aid of a tippani and the Court had rejected the said report. The petitioners thereafter filed yet another application seeking that a surveyor be appointed and this time around they had made a request to carry out the procedure in a proper manner. But the court below however, was not impressed with the application and has held that it was for the petitioners to have taken appropriate measures in the first instance and that he cannot repeat such prayers and has rejected their application. The respondents however are not averse to a surveyor being appointed but the apprehension is that the petitioners are seeking to dismantle the existing house on the suit property which is strongly opposed. However, he would concede that the requirement of ascertainment of the extent of the residential area

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

out 10 guntas of land is necessary as it may fall short of 8 guntas or that it may even be 6 guntas depending on the verification of the said area.

¶45

Since the Court below in the first instance had found it necessary to have the assistance of a surveyor, the Court now having rejected the prayer for appointment of a surveyor only on the ground that the petitioners were not diligent may not serve the ends of justice and when even the Court itself has earlier felt the need for appointment of a surveyor. The Court below is hence requested now to permit the appointment of a surveyor and to carry out the commission in terms of the instructions that may be provided which shall not include the dismantling of the existing house and at its discretion, shall instruct the surveyor accordingly. Whether the existing eventually ought to be dismantled is a question left open for determination later.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

kmv

Shashikala W/O. Ganapati Bhat v. Annayya Subray Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala W/O. Ganapati Bhat v. Annayya Subray Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Intelligence Officer Vs P Balakrishnan @ Krishna @ Balan @ Rajan

Joseph Chacko Vs State of Karnataka

Joseph Chacko Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavraj S/O. Mallikarjun Motagi Vs Sanjay Subash Motagi

Shivappa Parsa Gulagavi Vs Maruti Sabu Gulagavi

Siddappa Vs Siddappa