Disposed

Sri.K.Chandrashekar v. Ramakrishna T

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2018WA/996/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Appeal by accepting a Joint Memo between contending parties requesting the Assistant Commissioner to fix hudbusth and conduct phodi. The matter was remitted with a three-month compliance period.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is disposed of; the 3rd respondent is remitted to consider the Joint Memo and pass orders or remit to the 4th respondent within three months.

Sri.K.Chandrashekar Vs Ramakrishna T — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.A.No.996/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.996/2018 ( KLR-RR/SUR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. K CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE V. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.682, 9^TH ‘A’ CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU – 560086.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR, SRI. SRIKANTH. M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 (A) TO (D))

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR. RAMAKRISHNA. T, SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEAGAL HEIRS,

¶15

1(A) SMT. GAJALAKSHMI W/O LATE. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶16

1(B) SRI. VARPRASAD. R S/O LATE. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶17

W.A.No.996/2018

¶18

¶19

1(C) SRI. VISHWANATH. R S/O LATE. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶20

1(D) SRI. SHANKAR. R S/O LATE. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.599, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 5^TH CROSS ROAD, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560057

¶22

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN, BENGALURU – 560009.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶25

SRI. VENKATARAMAIAH, S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶26

SRI. ASWATHAPPA S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 ARE RESIDING AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560090.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2 – R4)

W.A.No.996/2018

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP 11944/2012 DATED 08/11/2017.

¶33

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, KRISHNA S.DIXIT. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

In this Writ Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and order dated 08.11.2017 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11944/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) whereby, the order dated 15.03.2012 made by the respondent – Special Deputy Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is quashed.

¶36

Today, learned counsel for the contesting parties have filed a Memo requesting this Court to dispose of this Writ Appeal in terms of the said Memo by directing the 3^rd respondent – Assistant Commissioner to fix the hudbusth of their respective properties and to conduct phodi and further to

¶37

W.A.No.996/2018

¶38

¶39

carry out consequential revenue entries with reference to Sy.No.60/3 of Hurali Chikkanahalli village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶40

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since the lis in this Writ Appeal is essentially between the private parties, who have filed the Joint Memo, there is no legal impediment for disposing of the same in terms thereof.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the said Joint Memo, we are satisfied that the terms of settlement of this dispute as incorporated in the same are just and lawful.

¶42

In the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo dated 11.06.2018 filed by the contesting parties.

¶43

The matter is remitted to the 3^rd respondent – Assistant Commissioner to consider the said Joint Memo and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. It is open to the said

¶44

W.A.No.996/2018

¶45

¶46

Assistant Commissioner to do the exercise himself or to remit the matter to the 4^th respondent – Tahsildar for consideration.

¶47

The time for compliance is three months from the date on which a copy of this order is received by the 3^rd respondent.

¶48

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Snb/

Sri.K.Chandrashekar v. Ramakrishna T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.Chandrashekar v. Ramakrishna T

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri a. S. Katti Mandaiah

Sri.T.S.Viswanathan Vs Bank of Baroda

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Kamalamma

R Manoharan Vs the Karnataka State Law University

Anupama Shenoy Vs Union of India

Sri v Vinod D Kamath Vs Sri Preeth Hegde