Disposed

Zahirabi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2021WP/12198/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed to quash an impugned revenue order affecting land mutation. The petitioner sought leave to expand a prayer restricted to a third party alone. The court directed the first respondent, Deputy Commissioner Tumakuru, to expeditiously dispose of a pending revision petition within six months.

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, directed to expeditiously dispose of the revision petition in R.P.No.12/2018 within six months.

Zahirabi Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.12198/2021 (KLR RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

ZAHIRABI

¶8

W/O. LATE MOHAMAD IMAM SAB AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS R/O. BELLAVI TUMKURU TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572216

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRISH. B.R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU - 572216

¶13

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB DIVN. TUMAKURU - 572216

¶14

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR NADA KACHERI, BELLAVI TUMKURU DISTRICT: 572216

¶15

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKURU TALUK

¶16

TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572216

¶17

¶18

SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O. LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O. BYALA VILLAGE BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKURU TALUK AND TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572216

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2017 ANNEXURE - C PASSED BY THE R2 IN RRT(A)(T)11/2009-10 AND THERE UPHELD THE MUTATION ORDER PASSED BY THE R3 IN IHC MR 10/2007-08 DATED 11.10.2007 THAT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE R2 IN ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 24.08.2016 ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the

¶25

¶26

respondent Nos.1 to 4, are heard for final disposal. As the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to restrict the prayer in the petition, notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed.

¶27

The petitioner contends that she is entitled for the revenue entries for the land measuring 0.39 guntas, including the kharab, in Sy.No.47/6B of Bellavi Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk [ the subject land ]. The fifth respondent, a stranger to the subject land, has impugned the revenue entries for the subject land before the Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru Sub Division, Tumakuru [the second respondent]. The second respondent has dismissed the fifth respondent's appeal by order dated 24.08.2016, and subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner has reviewed the order dated 24.08.2016 by the order dated 25.01.2017 without even notice to the petitioner.

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner, while

¶30

stating that the second respondent could not have reviewed its own order, submits that the petitioner has impugned the subsequent order dated 25.01.2017 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru [the first respondent] in R.P.No.12/2018. This petition in R.P.No.12/2018 is pending consideration, and given the circumstances in which subsequent order dated 25.01.2017 is passed by the second respondent, the writ petition be disposed of directing the first respondent to expeditiously dispose of the petition in R.P.No.12/2018.

¶31

On perusal of the records and in consideration of the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru [the first respondent] to expeditiously dispose of the revision petition in R.P.No.12/2018 strictly in accordance with law in the light of the grounds urged by the petitioner. The Deputy

¶32

¶33

Commissioner, Tumakuru shall in any event, dispose of the revision petition in R.P.No.12/2018 within six [6] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

Zahirabi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahirabi v. the Deputy Commissioner

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 H D Vijay Kumar Vs M/S Shri Ram Properties (P) Limited

Sri H D Vijay Kumar Vs M/S Shriram Properties Limited

Sri. H.D Vijayakumar Vs M/S Shriram Properties Limited

Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Ramachandra Vs the Thasildhar

Walter Monthero Vs the Deputy Commissioner