Dismissed

Sri M Subbanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2022WP/5517/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, vacating the earlier judgment in a partition dispute and pending civil suit is dismissed; however, the third respondent is directed to implement the outcome of the final partition suit. The court has no specific direction to vacate the 269th appeal order. The court dismissed the writ petition because the underlying property dispute was already pending in a civil suit.

What did the court decide?

5. Writ petition dismissed. Respondent No. 3 directed to take steps based on the outcome of the pending civil suit (O.S.No.22/2021).

Sri M Subbanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5517 OF 2021 (LB - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M. SUBBANNA, S/O MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT BAGGINAGERE VILLAGE, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 131.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.RAHUL P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PAPEGOWDA B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF REVENUE, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COURT OF APPEAL, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 131.

¶14

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIPPASANDRA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK - 562 131.

¶15

SRI. M. VEERANNA, S/O MUDDAIAH,

¶16

¶17

R/AT # 150/200/1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, IAVR EXTENSION, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.S.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R2 AND R3 - SERVED)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN THE APPEAL ON THE FILE OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATI, MAGADI DATED 27.11.2019 AS PER THE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 27.11.2019 in appeal No.TPMCR 16/2017-18, ordering the transfer of the name of the petitioner, respondent No.4 and their two brothers in the property register concerning the property bearing Khanesumari No.29/A, 29/B measuring 19 X 29 sq.ft and 18 X 30 sq.ft respectively situated at Bagginagere Village, Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk (henceforth referred as 'subject property' in short').

¶24

¶25

The petitioner claims that the subject property was granted to his father and after his death, the katha of the subject property was transferred to the name of the petitioner with the concurrence of respondent No.4 in the year 1988-89. Long thereafter, respondent No.4 filed an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 without even considering that the appeal was not accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, mechanically allowed the appeal and directed the katha to be entered in the name of the petitioner, respondent No.4 and two brothers, on the ground that all of them succeeded to the property.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends

¶27

that the appeal could not have been entertained by respondent No.2 that too after 30 years and respondent No.4 could not have challenged the same after having conceded to enter the name of the petitioner. He also contended that at a partition between the petitioner and

¶28

¶29

respondent No.4, on 24.01.2012, the subject property was not shown in the deed, since it was allotted to the share of the petitioner. Thus, he claimed that the parties had admitted that respondent No.4 had no subsisting interest in the said property.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 on the other hand submitted that the katha of the property in question was brought out in the name of the petitioner without any information to the respondent No.4 and therefore, the question of seeking for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before respondent No.2 did not arise. He also submitted that the father of respondent No.4 and the petitioner died intestate and therefore, respondent No.2 was justified in entering the name of the petitioner, respondent No.4 and their two brothers in the katha.

¶31

The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the property in question was granted to his father, who died intestate. The petitioner claims that the katha of the property in question was transferred to his name based on

¶32

¶33

a consent by respondent No.4. However, the same is denied by respondent No.4. The respondent No.2 should not have interfered and changed the entries, without the petitioner filing necessary application for condonation of delay. However, since it is stated at the bar that a suit for partition and separate possession is now pending consideration in O.S.No.22/2021 before the Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Magadi.

¶34

In that view of the matter, the order passed by respondent No.2 need not be disturbed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed . However, respondent No.3 is directed to take steps based on the out come of the civil suit referred above.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

ssb

Sri M Subbanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Subbanna 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arya Gruha Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Sri. H.G. Santhosh Vs the State of Karnataka

P.E. Sureshbabu Vs the Additional Secretary

Sri R Siddappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Ashok Subbaiah @ Subbaiah Pullera Vs Deputy Commissioner