Disposed

Sri v. Chandrashekar v the Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022WP/17549/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru disposed a writ petition seeking quashing of endorsement for khata transfer. The court directed the Assistant Revenue Officer to maintain status quo regarding the subject property entries until the disposal of pending appeals RFA No.481/2014 and RFA No.775/2013, and to update records once those appeals conclude. Associated interim application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed R-2 to maintain status quo of khata entries pending disposal of RFA Nos. 481/2014 and 775/2013; to update entries upon finality of those appeals; disposed of IA No.1/2018.

Sri v Chandrashekar Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.17549 OF 2015 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . SRI. V. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶8

SINCE DECEASED.

¶9

1(a) SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGED 55 YEARS W/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, R/AT NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.

¶10

1(b) SRI. RAVIKUMAR AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, R/AT NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI,

¶11

COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.

¶12

1(c) SMT. RADHA AGED 31 YEARS W/O. RAJAPPA D/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, R/AT NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER ODER ORDER DATED 24.11.2021 ON IA NO.1/2021)

¶13

SRI. V. BABU, AGED 41 YEARS,

¶14

3 . SRI.V. VENKATESH, AGED 35 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

4 . SRI. A.M. SHIVRAJ KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS,

¶17

5 . SRI. M. BALAKRISHNA, AGED 35 YEARS,

¶18

6 . SRI. A.V. MUNISWAMY, AGED 60 YEARS,

¶19

7 . SRI. SHOBHAM, AGED 38 YEARS,

¶20

REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. V.VENKATESH,

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDING IN A PORTION OF NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.

¶22

... PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI.PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

1 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶26

2 . THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER MARUTHISEVA NAGAR, BBMP WARD NO.50, BENGALURU-560 033.

¶27

3 . SRI. RAMAKRISHNA AGED 62 YEARS, (SINCE DEAD) S/O. SEETHARAMAIAH

¶28

a). SMT. SHAILAJA, MAJOR, W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA

¶29

b). SMT. NEELA, D/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA

¶30

c). SMT. DIVYA, D/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA

¶31

¶32

d). SMT. SUSHMA, D/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA,

¶33

3(a) TO (d) ARE RESIDING AT NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005

¶34

(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER ORDER ON IA NO.2/2020 AND 3/2020 DATED 01.04.2022)

¶35

4 . SMT. SHANTHA

¶36

AGED 48 YEARS,

¶37

RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING IN A PORTION OF NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.

¶38

... RESPONDENTS

¶39

[BY SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADV FOR R1 & R2; SRI. H.S.RAMAMURTHY, ADV FOR R4 & LR'S OF R3(a-d)]

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-1 & 2 VIDE ANENX-A DTD.17.3.2015 VIDE ANNEX-A AND DIRECT SUSPENSION OF GRANT OF KHATA IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY THE R-1 & 2 IN FAVOUR OF R-3 & 4 AND ETC.

¶41

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

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

The petitioners have challenged the endorsement

¶44

dated 17.03.2015 issued by the respondent No.2, by which the petitioners were called upon to furnish the stay order

¶45

¶46

granted in RFA No.481/2014, failing which the khatha of property bearing Sy.No.160/4, Jeevanahalli, Doddiguntas village in ward No.59 (henceforth referred as 'Subject Property') would be transferred to the names of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein.

¶47

The petitioners, claim that the aforesaid land was gifted by Smt. Chowdamma in favour of Smt. Lakshmamma

¶48

and parents of the petitioners. Since the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and other members belonging to the family of Sri. Seetharamaiah, denied the title of petitioners, they were constrained to file suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in O.S.No.15400/2000 before City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH No.29, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. The suit was decreed in so far as 'A' schedule property was concerned and dismissed in respect of 'B' schedule property. The 'B' schedule property is the subject property.

¶49

In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought transfer of their names in respect of the subject property contending that suit filed by petitioner in O.S.No.15400/2000 in respect of subject property was

¶50

¶51

dismissed. The petitioners opposed it by contending that the decree in O.S.No.15400/2000 was challenged in RFA No.481/2014 and therefore the khata should not be effected until disposal of RFA No.481/2014. It was in this context that respondent No.2 called upon the petitioners to furnish a copy of any order of stay granted in RFA No.481/2014, failing which, khata would be transferred to respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. Petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid, have filed the present petition.

¶52

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that khata

¶53

of the property in question stood in the name of petitioners and as the proceedings are pending before this Court, respondent No.2 should be directed to await the out come of RFA No.481/2014.

¶54

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that they too have filed RFA No.775/2013 against the decree of suit in part. The learned counsel did not dispute the fact that the petitioners have filed RFA No.481/2014 challenging the refusal of the relief in respect of the subject property.

¶55

¶56

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed off directing respondent No.2 to maintain s tatus-quo of the entries in respect of the subject property in question until disposal of RFA No.481/2014 and RFA No.775/2013. The respondent No.2 is directed to take necessary steps to enter the name of person who succeeds in the aforesaid appeals before this Court.

¶57

In view of disposal of writ petition, I.A.No.1/2018

¶58

does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Sri v. Chandrashekar v the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Chandrashekar v the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S F M Ummer Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Kashif Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H K Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Rathnakar Kamath Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Sree Shankarmutt Agrahara Vs the Assistant Commissioner