Allowed

Smt. Sujatha. N. G. v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2019WP/22034/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached Karnataka High Court via writ petition seeking mutation of revenue records and RTC based on a compromise decree in a partition suit. Court directed respondent Tahasildar to consider pending representation and effect mutation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued directing respondent to consider representation dated 19.03.2019 and mutate revenue records as per decree dated 16.10.2015 within three months.

Smt. Sujatha. N. G. Vs the Tahasildar — Partition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P.NO.22034/2019 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUJATHA N.G AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O NANDAN S REVEMMA COMPOUND 2^ND CROSS, M.G. ROAD TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.R. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE TAHASILDAR MAGADI TOWN MAGADI TALUK - 562 120.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED:19.03.2019 VIDE ANNEX-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT AND MAKE KHATHA AND RTC IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

None have appeared on behalf of petitioner. Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate who is on advance notice, has been heard and records have been perused.

¶20

Petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus being issued to respondent for considering application dated 19.03.2019- Annexure-B submitted by her and to mutate the revenue records as prayed for therein.

¶21

As could be seen from the case papers, petitioner herein was the 7^th defendant in O.S.No.265/2014, which suit had been filed for partition and separate possession by Sryuths Shashank and Jeevan, sons of late T.N. Praveen and said suit ended in a compromise decree being passed by the jurisdictional Court on 16.10.2015- Annexure-A, which

¶22

is a final decree. Hence, representation has been submitted by petitioner enclosing thereunder the

¶23

¶24

judgment and decree dated 16.10.2015 passed in O.S.No.265/2014 by the respondent for mutating the revenue records in terms of decree. Said representation has been received on 19.03.2019 and steps have not been taken by Tashsildar. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

In the light of aforestated facts, jurisdictional Tahsildar is required to effect the mutation in accordance with judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.265/2014, which exercise has not been undertaken by it.

¶26

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(2) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent to consider the representation dated 19.03.2019Annexure-B and to mutate the revenue

¶29

records as per judgment and decree dated 16.10.2015 passed in

¶30

¶31

O.S.No.265/2014 expeditiously and at

¶32

any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶33

Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate is

¶34

permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks

¶35

from today.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

Smt. Sujatha. N. G. v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sujatha. N. G. v. the Tahasildar

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

Sri. Malagi Basappa Vs the Tahsildar

Sri. a H Kuberappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The Agriculturist Processing Industrial Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimhamurthy Vs the Secretary

Smt. Lalitha Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Channamma Vs the Government of Karnataka