Allowed

Kumar Kartik S/O Manjunath Hubballi, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2023WP/103425/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the writ petition seeking mutation of name for the petitioners' share in revenue records. Following a coordinate bench decision, the court directed the Assistant Commissioner to complete mutation within two months, dispensing with the 11-E sketch requirement as per circular.

What did the court decide?

The respondent No. 4 is directed to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue records as per the final decree drawn in FDP No.2/2019 within two months.

Kumar Kartik S/O Manjunath Hubballi, Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10555 WP No. 103425 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 103425 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KUMAR KARTIK S/O MANJUNATH HUBBALLI, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O HALAPETE, SANTISHINGLI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG - 580031.

¶9

KUMAR VINAYAK S/O MANJUNATH HUBBALLI, AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O HALAPETE, SANTISHINGLI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-580031.

¶10

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶11

SMT. BASAMMA @ KALYANI W/O MANJUNATH HUBBALLI, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O HALEPATE, SANTISHINGLI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-580031.

¶12

… PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR .B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2023.09.20 11:46:15 +0530

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶17

M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG, TQ. & DIST. GADAG-583231.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG, TQ. & DIST. GADAG-583231.

¶20

THE TAHASHILDAR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10555 WP No. 103425 of 2023

¶23

DIST. DHARWAD-580024.

¶24

SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O RACHAPPA HUBBALLI, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O TIPPU NAGAR, NEKAR NAGAR MAIN ROAD, MALEKAR PLOT, 1^ST CROSS, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶25

NAGESH S/O RACHAPPA HUBBALLI, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O TIPPU NAGAR, NEKAR NAGAR MAIN ROAD, MALEKAR PLOT, 1^ST CROSS, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580024.

¶26

SMT. SHIVAMMAN W/O SURESH HANAKATTI @ KALGHATGI, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O 1^ST BUS STOP, HEBBALLI, DHARWAD-580004.

¶27

SMT. SAVITRI W/O MALLIKARJUN KAKARANBI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. NEAR BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE, KRISHNAPUR ONI, OLD HUBBALLI, DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580024.

¶28

MANJUNATH W/O RACHAPPA HUBBALLI, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TIPPU NAGAR, NEKAR NAGAR MAIN ROAD, MALEKAR PLOT, 1^ST CROSS, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580024.

¶29

IRAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA HUBBALLI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. TIPPU NAGAR, NEKAR NAGAR MAIN ROAD, MALEKAR PLOT, 1^ST CROSS, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580024.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN .M. KHANNUR, AGA)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT/LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 NUMBER.GANAKA/AMENDMENT/CIVIL COURT/VAHI/569/2021-2022 DATED. 07.11.2022 SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10555 WP No. 103425 of 2023

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Heard the learned counsel Rajashekhar .B. Halli appearing for the petitioners and learned AGA

¶37

Sri.M.M.Khannur, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶38

Learned counsel Shri Rajashekhar.B. Halli would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by plethora of judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benche of this Court. One such judgment is appended to the petition in the case of Kumar Kartik Vs. the State of Karnataka

¶39

and others in W.P. No.103193/2022, disposed off on 11^th October 2022.

¶40

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

¶41

aforesaid judgment held as follows:

¶42

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶43

2. Petitioners filed suit for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in land bearing Sy. No.55/2A/2 measuring 2 guntas situated at Ayodhya Nagar, Hubballi. The

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10555 WP No. 103425 of 2023

¶46

jurisdictional civil Court passed a preliminary decree allotting 2/15^th share in the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed FDP No.2/2019 for partitioning the suit property by metes and bounds and the FDP Court after accepting the report submitted by the Court Commissioner, allotted 2/15^th share in the suit property in terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.223/2014. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application with the respondent No.4 to mutate his name in the revenue records to the extent of 2/15^th share in the suit property. The said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioners have not furnished 11-E sketch, against which the present petition is filed.

¶47

3. I have examined the submissions

¶48

made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶49

4. The petitioners were allotted 2/15^th share by the jurisdictional civil Court in O.S. No.223/2014. The respondent No.4 was under an obligation to mutate the name of the petitioners as specified under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land

¶50

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10555 WP No. 103425 of 2023

¶51

Revenue Act. The circular dated 14.11.2016 issued by the Director of Bhoomi and UPOR dispenses with requirement of Form 11E sketch, wherever there is a Court decree.

¶52

In the above circumstances, the writ

¶53

petition is allowed. The respondent No.4 is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records as per the final decree drawn in FDP No.2/2019. The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶54

Learned HCGP would not dispute the said

¶55

position of law as is laid down by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court (supra).

¶56

In the light of the issue stands answered by the

¶57

Co-ordinate bench supra, I deem it appropriate to grant the very same that the Co-ordinate Bench is granted.

¶58

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶59

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10555 WP No. 103425 of 2023

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶62

(ii) The respondent No.4 is directed to mutate

¶63

the name of the petitioners in the revenue records as per the final decree drawn in FDP No.2/2019. The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

vb/ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Kumar Kartik S/O Manjunath Hubballi, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Kartik S/O Manjunath Hubballi, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajappa S/O Yallappa Totaganti Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Adarsh Enterprises, Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Gajanan S/O. Sairob Gaonkar Vs Mr. Narayana S/O. Kashinath Naik

The Management of Vs Jayapal

Smt.Shubha W/O Nagapati Hegde Vs the Director

Amjad Ansari S/O Deceased M.S Ansari Vs the State of Karnataka