Disposed

G O Madhu v. S M Gowda

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021WP/16038/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash land record proceedings. The Court observed that the appeal is not maintainable without a specific prayer to set aside earlier orders or bring relevant facts to the notice of the Deputy Director of Land Records.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of upon reservatory liberty to the petitioners to bring the issue of earlier orders to the notice of the respondent.

G O Madhu Vs S M Gowda — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P. No.16038 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.16038 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

G.O. MADHU S/O OMKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶10

OMKARAPPA S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶11

LAKKAMMA W/O LATE KENCHALAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MALALKERE VILLAGE AND POST DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577514

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY.K, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

S.M. GOWDA S/O G.MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶17

G.T. RUDRAMANI S/O J.R. THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶18

J.T. MANJUNATH S/O J.R. THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶19

W.P. No.16038 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

J.T. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O J.R. THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶22

ABDUL SAB AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶23

DADA PEER AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 CHILDREN OF LATE BUDEN SAB AND R/AT 10^TH CROSS, II MAIN VINOBHA NAGAR DAVANAGERE-577004

¶25

N.M. RADHA W/O N.G. HARISH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶26

H. DADA PEER S/O HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶27

JUBEDA BEGUM W/O H. DADA PEER AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶28

DADA PEER S/O LATE K.H. NAZEER SAB AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶29

SYED AHMED S/O K.H. NAZEER SAB AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶30

NABI SAB S/O HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶31

DADA PEER S/O NABI SAB AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶32

W.P. No.16038 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

SUBAN SAB S/O LATE HONNUR SAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶35

N.G. HARISH S/O GURUSHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS

¶36

DADA PEER S/O LATE BUDEN SABA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶37

THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 7 TO 16 ARE RESIDING AT MALALKERE VILLAGE AND POST DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577514

¶38

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS DAVANAGRE PIN-577514

¶39

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS DAVANAGERE TALUK-577514

¶40

19 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶41

… RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R17 TO R19; NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS DAVANAGERE THE R-1 IN PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANENXURE-A AND ETC.

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

W.P. No.16038 OF 2021

¶47

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Davanagere in Proceedings No.¨sÀÆG¤.C¦Ã®Ä. 01.201-22 at Annexure-A.

¶50

Sri.Srinivas Gowda, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondents No.17, 18 and 19. Notice to other respondents is dispensed with in view of the order that is proposed to be passed.

¶51

The contention of Sri.Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings before respondent No.17 is completely misconceived inasmuch as the prayers sought for in the said proceeding are to pass necessary orders in contravention and/or disregarding all earlier orders passed in relation to the property in question.

¶52

The petitioners are yet to appear before respondent No.17. Petitioners would always be at liberty to bring all these facts to the notice of respondent No.17 who is

¶53

W.P. No.16038 OF 2021

¶54

¶55

bound to consider the aspect if there are any orders which have been passed earlier. Without setting aside those orders, no order could be passed by respondent No.17. Untill such prayer has been sought for, the appeal could not be maintainable.

¶56

Reserving liberty to the petitioners to bring the above facts to the notice of the respondent No.17, the petition is disposed of.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

G O Madhu v. S M Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G O Madhu v. S M Gowda

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

Smt Shylashree Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Amit Garg Vs Indecomm Global Services (Mauritius)