Sri Papanna @ Muniyappa v. Deputy Commissioner
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Karnataka, in a writ petition challenging a revenue mutation order restored to a third party, held that since the petitioner has instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership, there was no reason to entertain the present writ petition. The writ was rejected.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition rejected. Mutation entries shall abide by the decree in O.S.No.403/2016. Open to petitioners to approach Civil Court for interim relief.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.5235 OF 2022 (KLR – RES)
BETWEEN:
- SRI. PAPANNA @ MUNIYAPPA, SINCE DEAD
- REPRESENTED BY LRS.,
- 1(a) SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, D/O LATE PAPANNA @ MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
- 1(b) SMT. RENUKAMMA, D/O LATE PAPANNA @ MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
- 1(c) SRI. I. P. SHIVARAJU, S/O LATE PAPANNA @ MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this court should exercise its discretion to entertain this writ petition for quashing a revenue mutation order when a civil suit for declaration of ownership is already pending.
Whether revenue entries can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition when the title to the property is under consideration in a civil court.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sri. Panna @ Muniyappa Represented by LRS.
- respondent
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District
- respondent
The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division
- respondent
Thasildar, Anekal Taluk
- respondent
Sri. Rangappa @ Chikka Rangappa
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/5235/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court