Dismissed

Smt. Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2022WP/5686/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a direction to enter her name in revenue records. The court dismissed the petition because an appeal regarding the mutation was pending and the petitioner was a party to those proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed stating that the authorities cannot entertain the petitioner's claim while the mutation appeal is pending.

Smt. Parvathamma Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

W.P.No.5686/2020 (KLR - RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE CHIKKAMARIGOWDA, R/AT BARADANAHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 119.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.NARASIMHA MURTHY K., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA - 571 511.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶15

¶16

RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA - 571 511.

¶17

THE TASHILDAR, OFFICE OF TALUK OFFICE, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS AS PER THE APPLICATIONS DATED 19.12.2019, 20.12.2019 FILED BY PETITIONER WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - K, L, M, RESPECTIVELY.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records as requested by the petitioner in her applications dated 19.12.2019 and 20.12.2019.

¶24

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits

¶25

that as against the order of mutation made in favour of

¶26

¶27

Sri.Byregowda, the Tahsildar has preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.22/2020-21 and in the said appeal, there an interim order has been granted.

¶28

In view of the fact that there is an appeal pending regarding mutation in respect of Sy.No.40, measuring 5 acres and the petitioner herself is a party to the said proceedings, the authorities cannot obviously entertain her claim for entering her name in the revenue records, till the disposal of the appeal.

¶29

Consequently, this petition cannot be entertained at this stage and the same is dismissed.

¶30

The authorities shall however, act in accordance with the order that may be passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal.

¶31

SD/JUDGE

¶32

Smt. Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parvathamma v. 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

Shri Raghupathi Naidu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt B Mangalagowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shanthilal Mutha Vs the Special Deputy COMMISSIONER-1

Sri Jayaramu Vs the State of Karnataka

K M Aliyulla Khan, Since Presumed Dead by LRs Smt. Yasmiin Ali Khan Vs R Sarvesha Murthy

Smt Parvathamma Vs Special Tahasildar