Disposed

Smt Shanthamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2021WP/7526/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single bench of the High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to the Tahsildhar to transfer revenue entries in favour of petitioners. Relying on an undisputed partition suit decree that remains for metes and bounds drawal, the court held that exclusive revenue entries cannot be ordered in absence of a final executed decree and allowed the petitioners liberty to make

What did the court decide?

Direction to transfer revenue entries dismissed; liberty granted to petitioners to make detailed representation enclosing final decree.

Smt Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7526 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Smt. Shanthamma D/o Late Munivenkatappa Aged about 50 years

¶8

Smt. Nagarathna D/o Late Munivenkatappa Aged about 43 years

¶9

Both are R/at #1661, Gowthamnagar Bangarpet Taluk Bangarpeth.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Sri.Naveed Ahmed, Advocate)

¶12

AND :

¶13

The State of Karnataka By Secretary Revenue Department M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560 001

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner Kolar Sub Division, Revenue Office, Kolar – 563 101

¶15

¶16

3. The Tahsildhar Bangapeth Taluk,

¶17

Kolar District – 563 101

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Sri.R. Srinivas Gowda, AGA)

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 And 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.3 transfer Khata for Land Property bearing 169, 57, 61 situated at Bangarpet Village, Bangarpet Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk, measuring to an extent of 9 acres 4 guntas, 0.07 guntas and 0.03 guntas respectively in favour of petitioner by considering the representation of the petitioners dated 21.01.2021 at Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity.

¶21

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3, are heard for final disposal.

¶24

The petitioners have sought for a direction to

¶25

the Tahsildhar, Bangarpeth Taluk, Kolar District [the third respondent] to consider the petitioners’

¶26

¶27

representation dated 27.01.2021 to transfer the revenue entries for the lands in Survey Nos.169 (9 acres 4 guntas), 57 (7 guntas) and 61 (3 guntas) of Bangarpet Village, Bangarpet Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk [‘the Subject properties’].

¶28

The petitioners’ case is that their suit for partition in O.S.No.02/2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, KGF is decreed on 29.06.2016 declaring that they and certain other family members are entitled to 1/3rd share each in certain immovable properties, including the subject properties. This judgment and preliminary decree in O.S.No.02/2008 have attained finality. After the disposal of the suit, one of the defendants to the suit has approached the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner [the second respondent] in an appeal in RA No.62/2016-17 for change in revenue entries in terms of the decree. The appeal in RA No.62/2016-17 is

¶29

¶30

disposed of by the second respondent directing the third respondent to take necessary action for change of revenue entries in terms of the said judgment and decree. The third respondent, despite this order has not taken any action and as such, the petitioners have filed their representation.

¶31

However, it is undisputed that the

¶32

petitioners’ exclusive right to the subject properties to the exclusion of the other members of the family would be after partition of the properties by metes and bounds as per the final decree drawn in the Final Decree Proceedings under Order XX of CPC and such decree is yet to be drawn. The petitioners rely upon the order sheet in the Final Decree to assert acceptance of the Commissioner’s Report, but the report is not placed on record. In these circumstances, there cannot be a direction to enter the revenue entries for the subject properties only in favour of the petitioners and

¶33

¶34

therefore, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a detailed representation with the third respondent enclosing a copy of final decree.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

MDS

Smt Shanthamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shanthamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K C Rohith Vs the Prl. Secretary

K C Udaya Vs the Prl. Secretary

Smt. P. Bramaramba Vs Dr. Tulip Chamany

Rajanna H D Vs the State of Karnataka Represented by

Smt Shanthamma S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Angasagiriyappa Vs the Thashildar