Disposed

Smt Shylashree Rai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021WP/15699/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus to direct surveying authorities to conduct Phodi and Durasth regarding Survey No. 103 land.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus was issued directing Respondents No. 4 and 5 to carry out Phodi and Durasth in respect of the subject land within a period of four months from the date of the order.

Smt Shylashree Rai Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 15699 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.SHYLASHREE RAI W/O LATE M.SACHIDANANDA RAI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT SARVESHAWAR SADANA SCHARI PETE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI SHANTAKUMAR K.C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

¶13

SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDINGS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶14

BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION SAKALESHPURA-573 127

¶16

HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TECHNICAL ASSISTANT &

¶18

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND

¶19

RECORDS AND SURVEY HASSAN DISTRICT

¶20

HASSAN-573 201.

¶21

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR BELUR TALUK-573 115 BELUR

¶23

HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT BELURU TALUK-573 115

¶25

HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶26

... RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SHRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA)

¶28

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIONS DATED 8.9.2017, 13.9.2017 AND 12.2.2018 VIDE ANNEXURES-K, L AND N TO EFFECT PHODI DURASTH AND DEMARCATED BOUNDARIES IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.103 AN EXTENT OF 9 ACRES 36 GUNTAS OF MATHIHALI VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSNA DISTRICT, AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri R.Srinivas Gowda accepts notice for the respondents.

¶34

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent nos.2 to 4 to consider the representations made by her at Annexures-K, L and N and to effect Phodi and Durasth and demarcate boundaries in respect of land bearing Survey No.103 to an extent of 9 acres 36 guntas of Mathihalli Village, Arehalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, and to direct respondent no.3 to implement the order dated 23^rd January, 2016 at Annexure-G.

¶35

Sri R.Srinivas Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that given four months' time, the request of the petitioner would be considered and the necessary Phodi and Durasth would be conducted.

¶36

¶37

Hence, a writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent nos.4 and 5 to carry out Ph odi and Durasth in respect of the subject land within a period of four months from today. The said respondents shall act on a printout of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the petitioner without waiting for a certified copy thereof. If respondent nos.4 and 5 have any doubt about the order, they may verify the contents of the same from the website of this Court and/or from the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶38

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

VGH

Smt Shylashree Rai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shylashree Rai 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

Sri Aslam Pasha Vs Syed Ibrahim @ Chand Pasha

Sri. H R Rangesh Vs Maruthi M.N. Gowda

T K Sabu Vs Jayanthkumar S

Sri Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Amit Garg Vs Indecomm Global Services (Mauritius)

Sri. M K Ananth Vs M/S Indian Bank