Dismissed

Sri. Lakshmipathy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024WP/10118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an order dismissing an appeal where property title was disputed. The Court held revenue courts cannot decide title disputes and dismissed the writ petition directing a civil suit for declaration of title.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach competent Civil Court for declaration of title.

Sri. Lakshmipathy Vs the State of Karnataka — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25091 WP No. 10118 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 10118 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. LAKSHMIPATHY SON OF LATE CHELUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT HUTHRIDURGA VILLAGE, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 126

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL BODY AND PANCHAYTH RAJ, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL PIN CODE 562 130

¶14

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HUTHRIDURGA GRAM PANCHAYATH,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25091 WP No. 10118 of 2024

¶16

HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK

¶17

TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 126

¶18

SRI. CHELUVAIAH S/O LATE SINGRAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT HUTRIDURGA VILLAGE, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572126

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN., AGA FOR R1 SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 SMT. RADHIKA. N., & SMT. CHAITRA N., ADVOCATES FOR SRI. B.R. VISHWANATH., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2024 PASSED BY THE R2 IN VPC APPEAL NO. 04/2023-24/1761 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AS BAD IN LAW AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, CONSEQUENTLY AND QUASH KHATHA NO. 28/66, PROPERTY NO. 152500401601720179 (EKHATHA) IN THE NAME OF THE R4 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 10.97280 METER AND NORTH TO SOUTH 20.1168 METER, SITUATED AT HUTHRIDURGA VILLAGE, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25091 WP No. 10118 of 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶26

Having regard to the admitted fact that there are disputed questions of title and such disputed questions of title cannot be considered by the revenue authorities including the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, as per the settled position of law, the aggrieved person will have to approach a competent Civil Court to get a declaration in his or her favour.

¶27

This Court finds that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat calling in question a khata registered in favour of the fourth respondent. Allegations are sought to be made that the fourth respondent claimed that he has acquired title over the property under a Panchayat Parikat. It is also contended that the fourth respondent is not related to the petitioner and therefore, there cannot be a situation where there was a partition amongst the members of the family and there is a dispute as to the acquisition of title under the Panchayat Parikat. When that being the position, in the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner could not have filed an appeal under Section 269 of

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:25091 WP No. 10118 of 2024

¶30

the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 before the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, calling in question the khata registered in favour of the fourth respondent. It is also clear from the contentions of the petitioner that there is difficulty in identification of the property.

¶31

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner will have to approach a competent Civil Court and get a declaration of title.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

JT/-

¶35

CT: JL

Sri. Lakshmipathy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Lakshmipathy 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

M/S. Sitson India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Vrl Automation Engineering

Sri. Shivananda. K. M. Vs Panchayat Development Officer

Godrej Tyson Foods Limited Vs Billionsmiles Hospitality Private Limited

M/S Essae Technologys LLP Vs the Chief Commissioner

Nagaraja Naik, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Mala N Vs the Chief Commissioner