Dismissed

Smt. Kamala C v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2021WP/2882/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought to quash orders designating land as a burial ground and directed an enquiry to regularise Khata in her name. The bench observed that the primary order was not impugned and an alternative remedy existed, leading to dismissal to allow challenge to the primary order.

What did the court decide?

null

Smt. Kamala C Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2882/2021 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. KAMALA.C WIFE OF KENDAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT CHANDAHALLI VILLAGE B G PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI.SRINIVAS MANOHAR KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION MANDYA - 571 401.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR MALAVALLI TALUK MALAVALLI - 571 430.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 27.11.1989 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN I.E., ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA AND THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.11.2020 (ANNEXURE-G) ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, MALAVALLI TALUK I.E., THE THIRD RESPONDENT HEREIN; WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION OF APPROPRIATE NATURE DIRECTING THE SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN I.E., THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRTY AND EFFECT THE KHATA OF SY.NO. 203 OF CHANDAHALLI VILLAGE, B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT MEASURING 37 GUNTAS BELONGING TO ONE LAKKEGOWDA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS BEING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES THEREOF.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:

¶21

"a. Writ of Certiorari or writ or order of appropriate nature quashing the orders dated 27-111989 (ANNEXURE-E) passed by the second respondent herein i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Mandya SubDivision, Mandya and the Endorsement dated 12-11-

¶22

¶23

2020 (ANNEXURE-G) issued by Tahsalidar, Malavalli Taluk i.e., the third Respondent herein.

¶24

b. Writ of mandamus or writ or order or direction of appropriate nature directing the second Respondent herein i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub-Division, Mandya to conduct an enquiry and effect the Khata of Sy.No.203 of Chandahalli Village, B.G.Pura Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District measuring 37 guntas belonging to one Lakkegowda in the name of the Petitioner and her family members being the legal representatives thereof.

¶25

c. Writ or order or direction of appropriate nature as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs on such terms and conditions that this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

¶26

The petitioner’s case is that the subject land viz ., the land in Sy.No.203 (measuring 37 guntas) of Chandahalli Village, B.G. Pura Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District, is reserved for the purposes of burial ground way back in the year 1998-1999 by the second respondent/the Assistant

¶27

¶28

Commissioner, Mandya Sub Division, Mandya by the order dated 27.11.1998 in exercise of powers under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 because this land was shown to be a phada land. The revenue entries showing this land as phada land is wholly erroneous and the aforesaid order dated 27.11.1998 is behind their back.

¶29

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has so far not impugned this order dated 27.11.1998. The impugned endorsement is consequent to the order dated 27.11.1998, and until that order remains in force, the impugned endorsement dated 12.11.2020 would be unexceptionable. Further, the petitioner has alternative remedy as against the order dated 27.11.1998, and the merits of this order dated 27.11.1998 could be enquired into if such alternative remedy is availed.

¶30

¶31

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, subject to all just exceptions, to call in question the order dated 27.11.1998 (Annexure-E).

¶32

SD/JUDGE

¶33

Smt. Kamala C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamala C 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Chinnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Pg Setty Construction Technology Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Renukamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M C Basavaraju Vs the Secretary

Domappa Vs the Assistnat Commissioner

Sri Nagaraju P Vs the Karnataka Government