Disposed

Smt. Laxmibai v. Smt. Sharada

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2023WP/103756/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing revenue authorities to effect mutation of her 1/6th share in property based on a partition decree. The court found the initial representation lacked necessary documents and dismissed the petition without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a fresh representation with required documents; authorities directed to consider same within three months.

Smt. Laxmibai Vs Smt. Sharada — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6675 WP No. 103756 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 103756 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. SHARANAPPA NIGARI, D/O. TIPPANNA GOUDAR, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR NO.9, 5^TH MODEL HOUSE STREET, NAGASANDRA CIRCLE, TYAGARAJ NAGAR, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 028.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI N.S.KINI, ADVOCATE.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

ROHAN HADIMANI T High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶13

SMT. SHARADA W/O. REVANASIDDAPPA KURI, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO.214, MADHUMITRA LAYOUT, PHASE-2, BANDENELLA SANDRA ROAD, JIGANI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

SMT. LEELAVATI W/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYMENT, R/O. BANKERS COLONY, NEAR PANCHAMUKHI DEVASTHAN, GADAG-582 101.

¶15

SRI SURESH S/O. TIPPANNA GOUDAR @ SHEDLAGERI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶16

SMT. MAINAVATI W/O. SURESH GOUDAR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYMENT, R/O. NEAR PANCHIMUKHI DEVASTHAN, MULAGUND NAKA, GADAG-582 101.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6675 WP No. 103756 of 2023

¶18

SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SURESH GOUDAR @ SHEDLAGERI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TALLIKERI, PRESETLY R/O. BANKARS COLONY, NEAR PANCHIMUKHI DEVASTHAN, MULAGUND NAKA, GADAG-582 101.

¶19

SRI CHANDRU S/O. SURESH GOUDAR @ SHEDLAGERI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. TALLIKERI, PRESENTLY R/O. NEAR PANCHIMUKHI DEVASTHAN, MULAGUND NAKA, GADAG-582 101.

¶20

SRI RAVI S/O. SURESH GOUDAR @ SHEDLAGERI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. TALLIKERI, PRESETLY R/O. BANKERS COLONY, NEAR PANCHIMUKHI DEVASTHAN, TALUK AND DIST: GADAG-582 101.

¶21

SRI YALLAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA GOUDAR @ SHEDLAGERI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶22

SRI MAHANTESH S/O. YALLAPPA GOUDAR @ SHEDLAGERI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYMENT, R/O. TALLIKERI, PRESETLY R/O. BANKERS COLONY, NEAR PANCHIMUKHI DEVASTHAN, TALUK AND DIST: GADAG-582 101.

¶23

SMT. RADHABAI W/O. RAMAPPA MARATHE AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. WARD NO.3, JATTIGALLI, AMINGAD, TALUK: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587 118.

¶24

TAHASILDAR TALUK: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6675 WP No. 103756 of 2023

¶27

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,

¶28

TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587 118.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP, FOR R.9 AND R.10; NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.9 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND F, AND EFFECT MUTATION BY CARVING OUT THE SHARE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.10 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K, AND EFFECT MAP AND RECORDS CARVING OUT THE SHARE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ETC.,.

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondents No.9 and 10.

¶35

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent No.9 and 10 to consider the representation made by petitioner at Annexures-E, F and K and effect mutation by carving out share of petitioner in the suit schedule property in accordance with law.

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6675 WP No. 103756 of 2023

¶37

It is the case of petitioner that original suit in O.S.No.89/1993 was filed before the Prl. Civil Judge, Bagalkote, against the petitioner and others, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as defendant No.4, for partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be partly decreed granting 1/6^th share to each of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5. The defendant no.6 therein did not get any share.

¶38

The petitioner-defendant No.4 in order to

¶39

execute the decree in the original suit, initiated FDP proceedings on the basis of the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.89/1993 in FDP No.8/2014. During the

¶40

pendency of the previous FDP proceedings, the petitioner contends that, the suit schedule No.3 property was illegally sold in favour of respondent No.8 purchaser somewhere in the year 2013 who was arrayed as a party respondent No.5 in the FPD proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioner that, despite final decree, the statutory authorities respondents No.9 and 10 have not

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6675 WP No. 103756 of 2023

¶42

carried out separate mutation entry in respect of the immovable property fallen to the share of petitioner despite giving a representation. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

¶43

The fact remains, when partition suit came to be filed and the same is partly decreed, wherein 1/6^th share has been allotted to the plaintiff therein and defendants No.1 to 5, the petitioner being defendant No.4 is also entitled for 1/6^th share of the suit schedule property. Under the circumstances the FDP proceedings which was filed came to be concluded on the basis of the commissioner's report, based on which the petitioner has

¶44

made a representation to respondents No.9 and 10 to conduct a survey and mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records. But the revenue authorities i.e., respondents No.9 and 10 have not acted on the representation furnished by the petitioner. Due to the inaction of respondents No.9 and 10, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforestated reliefs.

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6675 WP No. 103756 of 2023

¶46

Learned HCGP representing respondents No.9

¶47

and 10 contends that the representation so submitted by the petitioner is flawed and it does not clearly specify what is the order of the trial Court, as no documents are furnished along with the representation. Hence, he contends that if proper representation is made along with necessary documents, respondents No.9 and 10 would consider the same in accordance with law. Placing his submission on record, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

ii) The petitioner shall make a fresh representation

¶51

along with required documents in support of his case, based on which respondents No.9 and 10 shall consider the same and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

¶52

iii) The petitioner shall make an application within

¶53

two weeks from today and the respondents shall consider

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6675 WP No. 103756 of 2023

¶56

the application within three months from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

MRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Smt. Laxmibai v. Smt. Sharada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmibai v. Smt. Sharada

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

Suryakant S/O Shivalingayya Muchandi Hiremath Vs Basavaraj S/O Nagappa Giddanavar

Maharshi Enterprise Vs the Karnataka Industrial Areas

Devappa S/O Sannasiddappa Ganter Vs the State of Karnataka

Bagalkote Cement and Industries Limited, Bagalkote Vs Bagalkote Town Development Authority

Anil Kumar Chirania, Vs Ballari City Corporation

Kamanagar Chillies Company Vs the Secretary