Allowed

Sri.S M Manjunatha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2021WP/1834/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a direction requiring the petitioner to produce 11E Sketches for property registration under a decree. Relying on a coordinate bench judgment and an Administrative circular dispensing with such forms, the Court quashed the endorsement and directed the Senior Sub-registrar to register the document if eligible.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement is quashed. The 4th respondent Senior Sub-registrar is directed to take the document for registration if eligible within four weeks.

Sri.S M Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1834 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S.M. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SON OF SRI B MUNIYAPPA, RESIDING AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,

¶14

8^TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶15

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SHIVAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT, NO.48, TROMP TOWER, NEAR PARISARA BHAVANA, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, VARTHUR, B.M.COMPLEX,

¶17

1^ST FLOOR, MUTHSANDRA ROAD,

¶18

VARTHUR, BENGALURU – 560 087.

¶19

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER, SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT AND DIRECTOR (UPOR), K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE DIRECTION DATED 16.10.2019, THE ANNX-D ISSUED BY THE R-4 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE 11 E SKETCH OF THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED IN FINAL DECREE ENGROSSED ON STAMP PAPERS IN O.S.NO.713/2018 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU DRAWN ON 07.03.2019 AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially

¶27

covered by the judgment of this court in W.P.No.10158/2021 (KLR-RES) between Shakunthala H.S.V/s Tahsildar and another, disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.8.2021.

¶28

Para 3 and the operative portion of the said

¶29

judgment read as under:

¶30

¶31

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at once responds by pointing out to the Circular dated 14.11.2016 issued by the Director of Bhoomi & UPOR, a copy whereof is placed on record by a Memo which dispenses with the requirement of Form 11E Sketch, wherever there is a Court decree.

¶32

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is favoured; a direction issues to the respondentTahsildar to make entries in terms of Compromise Decree in question without insisting upon Form 11E Sketch, within a period of two months failing which the Tahsildar shall personally pay to the petitioner Rs.2,000/- per day if delay is brooked.”

¶33

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-

¶34

933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF

¶35

KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should

¶36

treat like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigants, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶37

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; impugned endorsement is quashed; 4^th respondent Senior Sub-registrar is directed to take the document in question for

¶38

¶39

registration, in accordance with law, if it is otherwise eligible,

¶40

all contentions are kept open.

¶41

Time for compliance is four weeks from the date a copy

¶42

of this order is handed.

¶43

Now, no costs.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

cbc

Sri.S M Manjunatha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.S M Manjunatha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Madhukar Ranganath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mariswamy H Vs the Deputy Conservator of Forest

Sri. Vinayaka Recreation Association Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Venkatesh a Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Aricent Holdings Luxembourg S a R 1 Vs Point Red Telecom Limited

Shashikala Shantharam Vs State of Karnataka