Dismissed

Smt.Ningawwa v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WP/100733/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an endorsement denying execution of a sale deed for a plot the petitioner claimed was allotted in 1976. The court held the claim was stale as the plot was re-allotted in 1994 to a third party with executed sale deed, crystallizing rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed pending interlocutory applications disposed off.

Smt.Ningawwa Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7326 WP No. 100733 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 100733 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. NINGAWWA W/O. BASALINGAPPA HOSMANI, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. SMT. SHOBHA B. SANGAM, # 163, SHIVABASAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-PIN CODE NO.590010.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. A.B. NESARGI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE COMMISSIONER, CITY CORPORATION OF BELAGAVI. NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶10

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), CITY CORPORATION OF BELAGAVI, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶12

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED)

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-C IN MNB/KUM.SA/MME/SR/2016-17 DATED:28.09.2016 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO EXECUTIVE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF ALLOTTED PLOT.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7326 WP No. 100733 of 2017

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-C intimating the petitioner that site on which the petitioner is laying a claim is allotted to one D’Souza in 1994 and sale deed has already been executed. The said order is under challenge.

¶19

Heard the counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for Corporation.

¶20

On examining the records, it clearly emerges that the petitioner has made a stale claim. The petitioner’s contention is that, the site in question, measuring 30 x 45 sq.ft., was allotted to her in 1976 and that the entire sital value was paid by her. On an application dated 08.07.2017 made by the petitioner calling upon the respondents to execute sale deed in respect of the plot allotted to her in 1976, respondent No.2 issued an endorsement indicating that the said site was already allotted to one D’Souza in 1994 and therefore, the authorities are not in a position to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7326 WP No. 100733 of 2017

¶22

What emerges from the records is that, on account of complete laxness on the part of the petitioner, the respondents have re-allotted the very same plot to one D’Souza, who is not before this Court. The allotment of site to said D’Souza and consequent sale deed is not challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner is tracing her right through an allotment made in 1976. It is noticed by this Court that third party rights are created, which is clearly evident from Annexure-C dated 28.09.2016. If the said site is already allotted to one D’Souza and sale deed is executed by the Corporation, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence at this stage. The site in question has already changed hands and since third party rights are created, the rights have stood crystallized on account of passage of time and therefore, any indulgence would seriously prejudice the rights of the subsequent allottee. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i) The writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

¶25

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7326 WP No. 100733 of 2017

¶26

ii) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of

¶27

accordingly.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt.Ningawwa v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Ningawwa v. the Commissioner

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

Gangappa S/O Parappa Navalur Vs Iravva W/O Gurunath Navalur

Peeru S/O Buddoji Kormaddi Vs Smt. Reshma W/O Hasan Belgaumkar

Savitri W/O Basappa Madarkhandi Vs Sangappa Basappa Madarkhandi

Smt.G. Rukminamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mruthunjaya S/O Nagappayya Achari Vs the State of Karnataka

Appanna Kareppa Kitroji Vs Parasharam Bahirjee Desai