Allowed

Sri M Sekar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2021WP/30179/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a land owner to quash an order dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, and directed revenue authorities to delete a 'B' karab entry regarding the property.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT.540/2014-15 is quashed insofar as it relates to the subject property, and authorities are directed to delete the 'B' karab entry.

Sri M Sekar Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 30179/2019 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI M. SEKAR S/O SRI MANICKAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.3134 SHOBA PETUNIA APARTMENT VEERANNA PALYA, NAGAVARA BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶14

¶15

THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MYSORE - 570 001 BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By SRI.A.R. SRINIVASA., AGA FOR R1 & R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2021 R4 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.05.2015 PASSED IN NEW CASE NO. RRT 540/2014-15 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition as the owner of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk (the subject property) calling in question the order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT.540/2014-15 (Old No.RRT.ETC.230(1-10)/2009 & 10, 1109 and 1152/2011-12). The petitioner apart from seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 insofar as the subject property has also

¶22

¶23

sought for direction to the revenue authorities to delete the ‘B’ karab entry even in respect of the subject property.

¶24

The petitioner asserts that his vendor, Sri. V.C. Rajendra Prasad acquired title to 5 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk from Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimha Raja Wadiyar under the Gift Deed dated 18.02.2004. Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimha Raja Wadiyar has acquired this land in a partition and a subsequent settlement within his family members. The petitioner has purchased the subject property under the Sale Deed dated 31.12.2012. The revenue records are made in the name of the petitioner, and the petitioner is also granted change in the land by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority. The petitioner contends that his rights to the subject property are impeded by the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 and the consequential ‘B’ karab entry. This

¶25

¶26

impugned order dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure-A) is the subject matter in series of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.22658-22662/2015 and connected matters which are disposed of by order dated 19.06.2020. This Court has quashed the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 with different directions inter alia that the ‘B’ karab entry in the revenue records in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village, Ksaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk be deleted as a consequence of the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 being quashed.

¶27

These assertions remain uncontroverted, and with the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 being quashed by this Court with the direction to the authorities to delete the ‘B’ kharab entry, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner would also be entitled for similar relief. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT.540/2014-15 (Old No.RRT.ETC.230(1-10)/2009 & 10, 1109 and

¶28

¶29

1152/2011-12) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District is also quashed insofar as the subject property and the authorities are directed to delete the ‘B’ kharab entry even insofar as the subject property.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

SD/-

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

AN/-

Sri M Sekar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Sekar v. 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

K L Srihari Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S R. K. Infra (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Secretary

M/S Sharada Vidyaniketan Vs Thubarahalli Founhdation Trust

Sri T Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishna Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka