Disposed

sri mudalagiriyappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2021WP/7286/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ mandamus for immediate issuance of '11-E' land sketch arising from a compromise decree. Court disposed of writ allowing fresh application in prescribed form. Authorities directed to act within 8 weeks and permit applicant within 4 weeks to apply.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file application for '11-E' sketch within 4 weeks; respondents to act and inform within 8 weeks.

sri mudalagiriyappa Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7286/2020 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI MUDALAGIRIYAPPA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED 72 YEARS, R/O NEELIHALLI VILLAGE MIDIGESHI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA. K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE TAHSILDAR MADHUGIRI TALUK MADHUGIRI - 572 132 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY SETTLEMENT,

¶14

¶15

OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR MADHUGIRI TALUK MADHUGIRI

¶16

TUMAKURU DIST - 572 132.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT SURVEY AND ISSUE SURVEY SKETCH TO PETITIONER, IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 49/3, TO THE EXTENT OF ONE ACRE, SITUATED AT SHOBENAHALLY VILLAGE ID HALLY HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT ANNEXURE-C EXPEDITIOUSLY AND WITHIN A TIME FRAME.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Sri. R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard for final disposal.

¶23

¶24

The petitioner has filed this petition for a writ of a direction to the Tahsildar, Madhugiri Taluk, Madhugiri, and the Assistant Director of Land Records and Survey Settlement, Madhugiri Taluk to issue '11-E' sketch for the land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No.49/3 of Shobenahally Village, ID Hally Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District. The petitioner asserts that the suit commenced by him for specific performance in O.S. No.123/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri has ended in a compromise and in terms of this compromise, he is entitled to the sale deed for the subject property. As such, he has filed application for issuance of '11-E' sketch for the subject property and such sketch has not been issued.

¶25

The learned Additional Government Advocate is unable to controvert that the petitioner cannot complete the sale transaction without such '11-E' sketch though the petitioner may have a decree for

¶26

¶27

specific performance, but he submits that if an application in the prescribed Form is filed with the Tahsildar, Madhugiri Taluk, Madhugiri, Tumakuru District as also the Additional Director of Land Records and Survey Settlement, Madhugiri Taluk, Madhugiri, Tumakuru District [the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively], needful would be done in a time bound manner.

¶28

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an application in the prescribed Form for issuance of '11-E' sketch for the subject property with the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 enclosing the certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall make such application within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and if such representation is made to the aforesaid respondents viz., the respondent Nos.2 and 3, shall take

¶29

¶30

appropriate action and inform the petitioner about the same within eight [8] weeks therefrom.

¶31

SD/JUDGE

¶32

AN/-

sri mudalagiriyappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

sri mudalagiriyappa 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

M Narayana Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Smt Subbamma Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Shivakumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

V.N. Balaji Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt K Leelavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka