Disposed

Smt. Vishalakshamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2019WP/47181/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an order dismissing a revision petition regarding mutation of revenue records. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation for mutation, directing the revenue authorities to consider it after issuing notice to the opposing party.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to submit a representation to the Tahsildar for mutation of revenue records, with direction to issue notice to the fifth respondent.

Smt. Vishalakshamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Partition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P.NOs.47181/2011 & 14189/2012 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT. VISHALAKSHAMMA W/O SRINIVAS IYTAL AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶9

2 . SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA ITHAL S/O SRINIVAS IYTAL MAJOR.

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF GEEJAGARU VILLAGE, THALAGUPPA HOBLI SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR S JATLA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶16

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB DIVISION SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶17

¶18

4 . THE TAHSILDAR SAGAR TALUK, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶19

5 . SRI. K.T. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA S/O THIMMAPPAA MAJOR R/O KHANDIKA, THALAGUPPA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; V/O DATED:18.02.2019 W.P AS AGAINST R-5 ABATED)

¶22

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:20.05.2011 IN CASE NO.R.MISC.30/05-06 PASSED BY THE R-2, VIDE ANN-D.

¶23

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the second respondent in R.Misc.No.30/2005-06 whereunder revision petition filed by petitioners have been dismissed by opining that khataha of the property bearing Sy.Nos.32, 33, 50 and 84 of Khandika Village, Talaguppa Hobli, Sagar Taluk is ordered to be mutated in the joint names of first

¶26

¶27

petitioner and fifth respondent’s family members as per interim order passed by the Munsiff Court in O.S.No.282/1964 dated 29.07.1965.

¶28

First petitioner had approached fourth

¶29

respondent for change of khata in her favour in respect of aforesaid properties on dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.282/1964 on 23.8.1965. Hence, fourth

¶30

respondent after obtaining necessary documents vide order dated 26.09.2001 ordered for continuing the name of the first petitioner. It is thereafter the first petitioner executed a partition deed in favour of the second petitioner on 02.03.1988 which is also duly registered and pursuant to the same second petitioner approached Thasildar for change of khata in her name. However, fifth respondent herein filed objections for mutating the revenue records in the name of the second petitioner. However, fourth respondent has ordered for change of khata in the name of second petitioner vide Annexure-B. Against which order, appeal has been filed

¶31

¶32

by the fifth respondent in R.A.No.79/2001-02 before the third respondent and R.A.No.158/2004-05 was also

¶33

clubbed along with R.A.No.79/2001-02 and by impugned order dated 13.02.2006Annexure-C1, matter was remanded back to the fourth respondent for consideration afresh.

¶34

Being aggrieved by said order, petitioners have filed R.Misc.No.30/2005-06 before second respondent, who by impugned order dated 20.05.2011 has dismissed the R.Misc.No.30/2005-06 on the ground that O.S.No.282/1964 is still pending.

¶35

In the light of suit in O.S.No.282/1964

¶36

having been disposed of on 23.08.1965 and khatha having been mutated in the name of first petitioner and thereafter in the name of second petitioner by order dated 26.09.2001- Annexure-A, it would suffice if liberty is granted to petitioner to submit a representation to fourth respondent for mutating the revenue records in his name and on such

¶37

¶38

representation/application being filed, fourth respondent shall consider the same, keeping in mind the order dated 26.09.2001-Annexure-A and necessarily after issuing notice to fifth respondent. SD/JUDGE

¶39

Smt. Vishalakshamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vishalakshamma v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt Venkamma S Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S v Ganapathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanjeev Kumar v Rayabhagi Vs Additional Registrar of Co-Opertive Societies

Smt Sarojamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Saraswathamma Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Hill Land Properties and Developers Vs the Deputy Commissioner