Disposed

Smt. Nagarathnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023WP/1717/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking mandamus for issuance of E-Khata to petitioner in respect of properties owned by her late husband. Court found representations unacted upon and directed authority to consider them within six months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 directed to consider petitioner's representations dated 15.04.2016 and 06.08.2016 for issuance of E-Khata within six months.

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1717 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1717 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT BEERAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVARAHOSAHALLI POST, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NINGARAJA M N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GAYATHRI N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERENMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

THE CHIEF SECRETARY ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123

¶16

¶17

WP No. 1717 of 2017

¶18

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AGALAKUPPE GRAM PANCHAYATH, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.S.DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 TO EXPEDITIOUSLY CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.08.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F SUPRA TO ISSUE E - KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE UNDER MENTIONED PROPERTIES A, B AND C, BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO ISSUE E-KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Sri.Ningaraja M.N., learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Smt. A.R.Sharadamba, learned AGA for respondent

¶26

No.1.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 1717 of 2017

¶29

Sri.M.S.Devaraj, learned counsel for respondent

¶30

Nos.2 to 4.

¶31

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking prayer to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No.4 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner's husband dated 15.04.2016 and 06.08.2016 for issuance of E-Khata insofar as it pertains to schedule properties.

¶32

The facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner's husband late Sri.Narasaiah, is the absolute owner of the property bearing Khatha No.32/2 measuring 17ft x 30 ft, Khatha No.14/1 measuring 25ft x 45ft and Khatha No.14 measuring 18ft x 40ft, situated at Beeragondanahalli Village, Devarahosahalli Post, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner had acquired these properties and they are in possession of the same. They are paying the taxes regularly to respondent No.4-

¶33

¶34

WP No. 1717 of 2017

¶35

Grama Panchayath. It is averred that the husband of the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 15.04.2016 along with documents to respondent No.4, with a request to issue E-Khatha to the properties in question. It is further averred that despite the said representation, respondent No.4 has not acted on the same and sought a prayer to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No.4 to issue E-Khatha.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her husband had submitted the representation dated 15.04.2016 to respondent No.4 for issuance of E-Khatha. However, no action is taken on such representation. Hence, prayer to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No.4 to issue E-Khatha.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4-Authority would consider the representations submitted by the petitioner at Annexures-D and F, in accordance with law if reasonable time is granted.

¶38

¶39

WP No. 1717 of 2017

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶41

and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶42

It is admitted that husband of the petitioner late Sri.Narasaiah had submitted the representation dated 15.04.2016 and after his demise, the petitioner has submitted another representation dated 06.08.2016 at Annexures -D and F. However, no action has been taken upon the said representations by the respondentAuthority.

¶43

It is evident from the materials placed before this Court by the petitioner that the schedule properties are the properties of late Sri.Narasaiah and he has paid the property taxes regularly and his name is found in the Property Demand Register extract. The respondentAuthority being the instrumentality of the State are required to act on the request of the petitioner and take steps to enter the name of the legal heirs of late Sri.Narasaiah in the E-Khatha insofar as it pertains to the

¶44

¶45

WP No. 1717 of 2017

¶46

property in question. The respondent-Authority have failed to act on the representations dated 15.04.2016 and 06.08.2016.

¶47

In view of the same, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15.04.2016 and 06.08.2016 in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶48

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

MDS

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Smt. Nagarathnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nagarathnamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.M.Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Shivaji Rao Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Y.N. Jayanna Vs the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike