Allowed

Ashok Naika v. Tahasildar

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2021WP/9655/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition seeking quashing of an endorsement refusing mutation of land revenue entries to a legatee. The court held the Tahsildar was bound to consider the application under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and quashed the impugned order directing compliance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned endorsement was quashed; the petitioner was directed to file a representation with a certified copy of the order.

Ashok Naika Vs Tahasildar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9655 OF 2021 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

ASHOK NAIKA, S/O SATISH NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT PERADKA COLONY HOUSE, MALA VILLAGE, KARKALLA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

TAHASILDAR, KARKAL, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR

¶15

¶16

QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.06.2020 IN NO.RRT(1) CR 124/19-20 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition calling in question the Endorsement dated 16.06.2010 in RRT (1) CR 124/201920 issued by the respondent-the Tahsildar, Karkala Taluk. This Endorsement dated 16.06.2020 is issued informing the petitioner that the revenue entries for the land measuring 0.28 acres in Survey No. 505/3 of Mala village, Karkala Taluk [the subject property] cannot be mutated in favour of the petitioner and the mutation of the revenue entries could only be based on inheritance or partition.

¶20

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s grandmother, Smt. Prema Naika is the

¶22

undisputed owner of the subject land and she has executed her last Will and Testament dated 09.07.2018 bequeathing the subject property to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to have the revenue entries mutated in his favour consequent to such bequest, and the impugned endorsement could not have been issued refusing mutation entries merely because the petitioner had submitted an application as a legatee under a Will and Testament.

¶23

Indeed, this would be so; the Tahsildar, Karkala Taluk is statutorily bound to consider the application in accordance with Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Rules thereunder. The petitioner’s application could not have been rejected, even without the due process as contemplated under the aforesaid provisions,

¶24

¶25

only because he asserts that he is entitled to the revenue entries in his favour as a legatee. In any event, if the last Will and Testament dated 09.07.2018 executed by the undisputed owner Smt. Prema Naika is disputed, such dispute will have to be adjudicated by the competent Court in a properly instituted suit. Therefore, the following:-

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

[a] The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned Endorsement dated 16.06.2010 bearing No.RRT(1) CR 124/19-20 is quashed. The Tahsildar [the respondent] is directed to consider the petitioner’s request in terms of Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rules there under.

¶28

[b] The petitioner shall file a representation, enclosing a certified copy of the order within four weeks from the date of receipt of such copy, with the respondent who

¶29

¶30

shall take measures for consideration of the same in light of the observations made herein and inform the petitioner in writing about the measures taken.

¶31

SD/JUDGE

¶32

mbb

Ashok Naika v. Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Naika v. Tahasildar

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

Smt Girija Prabhakar Vs Assistant Commissioner

Smt K Leelavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.S.P.Vasantha Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Siddharth Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commisioner of Public Instructions

Smt. Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka