Allowed

Smt Jayamma v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021WP/6394/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order restricting the petitioner's share in property. Court set aside the order due to lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present her case.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside and the matter remitted to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to place her objections and documents on record.

Smt Jayamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P. No.6394 OF 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.6394 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE SMT. SHARADAMMA S/O SRI. DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NEAR HULLURAMMA TOTA UPPARAHALLI BADAVANE TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572102 ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHAN.S, ADVOCATE-PH)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE PRESIDENT, COURT OF THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION TUMAKURU-572101

¶13

SMT. GANGAMMA D/O LATE SMT. SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT HULLURAMMA THOTA UPPARAHALLI BADAVANE TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU-572101 … RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. S.R. KAMALACHARN, AGA FOR R1-PH;

¶15

R2-SERVED)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶17

W.P. No.6394 OF 2019

¶18

¶19

IMPUGNED ORDER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H BEARING DATED 04.08.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the order dated 4.08.2018 passed by respondent No.1-Asst. Commissioner in MAWOP & SCA No.23/2017-18.

¶23

The said proceedings had been filed by respondent No.2 claiming that the petitioner had got executed release deed without her consent and therefore usurped the share of the respondent No.2 in the property owned by their mother Sharadamma, who had since deceased.

¶24

Sri.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to place her say before the Asst. Commissioner inasmuch as the petitioner is stated to have discharged the loan obtained by respondent No.2, in pursuance of which a registered release deed has been executed whereunder certain consideration has

¶25

W.P. No.6394 OF 2019

¶26

¶27

also been paid to respondent No.2. These aspects the petitioner wanted to place on record by filing detailed objections. However, instead of permitting the petitioner to do so, the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order.

¶28

Respondent No.2 though served has remained unrepresented.

¶29

I have considered the submissions made by Sri.S.Mohan, perused the release deed, loan agreement, as also the application filed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1. A perusal of the said documents, more particularly order sheet would indicate that sufficient opportunity has not been provided by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner to place her say in the matter. Furthermore, the orders passed by the respondent No.1 Asst.Commissioner are laconic and do

¶30

not comply with the requirements of judicial orders to be passed in order to cancel a registered release deed.

¶31

In view thereof, the order 4.08.2018 passed by respondent No.1-Asst. Commissioner in MAWOP & SCA

¶32

W.P. No.6394 OF 2019

¶33

¶34

No.23/2017-18. at Annexure-H is set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Asst. Commissioner-respondent No.1 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to place her say on record.

¶35

The petitioner to appear before the respondent No.1 without requirement of any further notice and submit her objections, as also documents on 5.04.201 at 3.00 p.m. Respondent No.1-Asst. Commissioner after taking the said documents and objections on record and after issuance of notice to the complainant therein to proceed with the matter and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶36

The petition is accordingly allowed .

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Smt Jayamma v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayamma v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

Shashidhar M Halyal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Annapoornamma and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Murigeppa Gouda S/O Annarao Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Sri Ranganth Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Virendra Khanna Vs State of Karnataka by

The Management of M/S Ultratech Cement Limited Vs Rajashree Cement General Workers and Anr.