Allowed

Smt Channabasamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/6248/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single-day order in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking a direction to issue a Possession Certificate and Hakkupathra. The Court allowed the petition and directed the Commissioner to consider a pending representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Respondent No.2 directed to consider representation dated 20.11.2004 within 12 weeks; liberty granted to submit fresh application.

Smt Channabasamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 6248 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6248 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT CHANNABASAMMA W/O LATE POOJAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK

¶9

SMT CHIKKAHANUMAKKA D/O LATE POOJAHANUMAIAH W/O HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK

¶10

HANUMANTHARAYA S/O LATE POOJAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC:PART TIME WORK

¶11

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE R/A NO.135/128 KAMAKSHIPALYA KAREKALLU HOUSING BOARD COLONY BANGALORE-560079

¶13

SMT PARANJYOTHI D/O LATE POOJAHANUMAIAH W/O RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/A K GOLLAHALLI KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. MANJULA R KAMADOLLI., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶16

¶17

WP No. 6248 of 2017

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560001

¶20

SMT CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O NO.12, IST MAIN ROAD KAREKALLU, KAMAKSHIPALYA (S C COLONY) BASAVESHWARANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560079

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. ANTOSH KUMAR M.B., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NAGARAJ M., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ISSUE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE AND HAKKUPATHRA TO THE PETITIONERS FOR HOUSE NO. 135/128, NEW NO.13 OF WARD NO.18 (NEW NO.101) A.K.COLONY, KAREKALLU, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - WP No. 6248 of 2017

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

a. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to issue Possession Certificate and Hakkupathra to the petitioners for House No. 135/128, New No.13 of Ward No.18 (New No.101) A.K.Colony, Karekallu, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore.

¶29

b. Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Honble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has given a representation to the respondent No.2 to issue a hakku patra which has not been considered by the respondent.

¶31

The said representation having been given on 20.11.2004, it was but required for the respondent to consider the same within a time frame. Even the suit which is alleged to have been pending is also disposed of subsequently.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 6248 of 2017

¶34

4. In view thereof, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶37

ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.11.2004 vide Annexure-A strictly in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶38

iii. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit fresh application accompanied by necessary documents within three weeks from today.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

PRS

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt Channabasamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Channabasamma 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

Smt Jayanthi Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

T. N. Shivaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Vokkaligara Kshemabivruddi Sangha (R) Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

D Venkanagowda Vs B Ramappa

Happi Organic Vs the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Eleven & Co. Vs State of Karnataka