Partly allowed

The Tahasildar v. Smt.Sujatha N G

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2021WA/120/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court of Karnataka distinguished between Government and private lands in a compromise decree. The court held the decree does not bind the State on Government land but directed the Tahasildar to process mutation for private properties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted of State liability on Government land. Direction issued to Tahasildar to process mutation for private properties within three months pending reconsideration.

The Tahasildar Vs Smt.Sujatha N G — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.120 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE TAHASILDAR MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562120.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, A.G.A.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. SUJATHA N.G. WIFE OF NANDAN S, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT REVEMMA COMPOUND, 2^ND CROSS, M.G. ROAD, TUMKURU-572101.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.10.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.22034/2019 (KLR-RES) IN SO FAR AS THE LAND IN S.NO.240 OF NARASANDRA VILLAGE OF MAGADI TALUK, MEASURING 11.16 ACRES, AND GRANTING SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶17

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 16.10.2019 passed in W.P. No.22034/2019 (Smt. Sujatha N.G. vs. The Tahasildar).

¶21

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent before this Court has preferred a writ petition stating that she has submitted an application on 19.03.2019 for mutation of her name in the revenue records and the same has not been decided by the Tahsildar. No notice was issued in the matter, as informed by the learned Government Advocate and the matter was disposed of at motion hearing stage itself. The facts further reveal that the application for mutation was made based upon a compromise decree passed in O.S. No.265/2014 dated 16.10.2015.

¶22

Learned Government Advocate has argued before this Court that in respect of a land which is a

¶23

¶24

Government property a compromise decree was passed and the Government is not a party to the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.265/2014, and therefore, the decree is not binding upon the Government. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the State Government is justified in making the aforesaid submissions. Once the Government is not a party to judgment and decree dated 16.10.2015, the question of mutating the name of the respondent in respect of Government land does not arise. However, from the judgment and decree it is seen that there are other properties also which are private properties, and therefore, in respect of other properties which are private properties the Tahsildar is certainly under an obligation to pass necessary orders in accordance with law in respect of the mutation application preferred by the respondent. Resultantly, the writ appeal stands disposed of with a direction to the Tahsildar to comply the order passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of private properties

¶25

¶26

only in accordance with law, within a period of three months.

¶27

It is made clear that in case in respect of Government land some mutation has been done, the State shall be free to reconsider and correct the entries keeping in view the order passed by this Court.

¶28

Pending I.As. stand disposed of.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

hnm

The Tahasildar v. Smt.Sujatha N G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tahasildar v. Smt.Sujatha N G

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. Nagappa

The Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-4 Vs M/S Microchip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Devaraj.Y Vs State of Karnataka

The Director (a and Hr) Vs Smt. E. Mary Magdalene

Sri. D B Yuvaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G a Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka