Disposed

Smt. Muniyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2023WP/15618/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of the writ petition regarding property rights and compensation. It held that since most petitioners executed sale deeds receiving compensation, their grievance was infructuous. For the sixth petitioner, the court directed approaching respondents with title deeds for title verification and compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; sixth petitioner directed to approach relevant respondents with title deeds to claim compensation if ownership is established.

Smt. Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36531 WP No. 15618 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.15618 OF 2020 (GM-SLUM)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O. LATE SAMPOORNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. ASHA W/O. MANJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. SUMITHRA D/O. LATE MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. C. GANESH S/O. LATE CHELUVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. KASHIYAMMA W/O. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. MANJULA W/O. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KARBAL MAIDANA, BEHIND RAILWAY PLATFORM,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:36531 WP No. 15618 of 2020

¶17

CHANNAPATTANA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M SHIVAPRAKASH., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562 160.

¶23

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHANNAPATTANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, CHENNAPATTANA-562 160.

¶24

KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AT NO.55, ABEYA COMPLEX, RESILDAR ROAD,SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶25

THE ESTATE OFFICER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BANGALORE DIVISION, ADJACENT TO KSR RAILWAY STATION, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K. HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. J. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. C. BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36531 WP No. 15618 of 2020

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF R-3 AND 5 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.22/3 AN EXTENT OF 0.5 GUNTAS AND 22/4 AN EXTENT OF 0.21 GUNTAS OF KARBALA MYDHANA, BEHIND RAILWAY PLATFORM CHANNAPATNNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND ETC.,

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent – Estate Officer, South Western Railway, Bangalore Division submits that along with memo dated 19.07.2023, copies of the sale deeds executed by the petitioners No.1 to 5, relinquishing their rights in respect of their respective properties in favour of the 3^rd respondent - City Municipal Council, Channapattana have been filed. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the grievance of the petitioners No.1 to 5 has become infructuous in view of their executing the sale deeds in respect of their properties in favour of the 3^rd respondent CMC. However, in respect of petitioner No.6,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:36531 WP No. 15618 of 2020

¶36

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly no such sale deed has been executed by the 6^th petitioner.

¶37

In the considered opinion of this Court, the 6^th petitioner is required to approach the respondent No.3 - City Municipal Council, Channapattana and the Estate Officer, South Western Railway, Bangalore Division, along with the title deeds. If the respondents are satisfied that the 6^th petitioner is also owner of the part of the property, then appropriate orders may be passed granting compensation to the 6^th petitioner also. While executing the sale deeds the petitioners have also received the compensation and therefore no further grievance of the petitioners is required to be considered.

¶38

With these observations, the writ petition stands

¶39

disposed of .

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

KLY CT: JL

Smt. Muniyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Muniyamma 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

Sri.K.R.Gangadarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Secon Private Limited Vs Executive Engineer

M/S Pup Cafe Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Nithish Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Deepti Antony Vs Subin Joseph

C. Gudde Channaiah Vs the State of Karnataka