Allowed

Shri. Raju S/O Shankar Parit Aliyas Motekar v. Shri. Prakash Vasant Motekar

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024WP/101789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order by the Deputy Commissioner for closing a dispute over joint family property. The order was set aside as no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The matter was remanded for afresh enquiry after a proper notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order by Respondent No.8 dated 24.11.2022 set aside; matter remanded to Respondent No.8 for afresh enquiry after providing opportunity to petitioner and respondents.

Shri. Raju S/O Shankar Parit Aliyas Motekar Vs Shri… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16746 WP No. 101789 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 101789 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. RAJU S/O. SHANKAR PARIT @ MOTEKAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT & AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.47, BHAIRAVANATH GALLI, HONAGA, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-591156.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANAND L. SANDRIMANI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

SHRI. PRAKASH VASANT MOTEKAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.4446, CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶15

SMT. SUSHILA VASANT MOTEKAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.4446, CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶16

SMT. MAHADEVI SHIVARUDRA SUREKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.4446, CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶17

SMT. RANJANA W/O. PANDURANG KARKAR,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16746 WP No. 101789 of 2024

¶19

AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.4446, CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶20

SMT. BHARATI SAMBHAJI RASAL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.4446, CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, BELAGAVI, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R6-R8; NOTICE TO R1-R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶27

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTIONS BY QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.8 IN NO.RB/RTA/121/2020-21 DATED 24-11-2022 AT ANNEXURE-E AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK FOR FRESH ENQUIRY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16746 WP No. 101789 of 2024

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶32

Petitioner claims to be a joint family member owning joint family property along with respondents No.1 to 5 and he managing the affairs of the whole joint family properties. This being the state of affairs, one Maruti and Santaram Managudkar of Honaga village filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Belagavi claiming occupancy rights over the property of petitioner, which was confirmed in their favour as tenants though they had not cultivated the land. Aggrieved by the said order, mother of petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.20512/2007 before this Court and order of status quo came to be passed. The respondents got changed their names during the pendency of the status quo order. The entries were entered in the name of respondents No.1 to 5. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner challenged the same before respondent No.7Assistant Commissioner to delete the said entry, which was rejected by respondent No.7 and the same came to be

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16746 WP No. 101789 of 2024

¶34

challenged before respondent No.8-Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner. During pendency of the matter before respondent No.8-Deputy Commissioner, an order came to be passed on 24.11.2022 closing the petition on the ground that no notice is taken to the respondents, which is questioned before this Court. It appears that respondent No.8-Deputy Commissioner has closed the matter without providing an opportunity to the petitioner solely on the ground that no notice was taken to the respondents.

¶35

2. On the short point, this Court deems it appropriate

¶36

to set aside the order and remand the matter back to respondent No.8 for afresh consideration by directing respondent No.8 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to take steps to respondents No.1 to 5 and thereafter to hear the petitioner and respondents and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) Petition is allowed.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16746 WP No. 101789 of 2024

¶40

(ii) The impugned order passed by respondent No.8 dated 24.11.2022 vide Annexure-E is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to respondent No.8 for afresh enquiry and fresh consideration.

¶41

(iii) It is made clear that this Court has not

¶42

expressed any opinion on the merits of the

¶43

matter.

¶44

Ordered accordingly.

¶45

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶46

CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Shri. Raju S/O Shankar Parit Aliyas Motekar v. Shri. Prakash Vasant Motekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Raju S/O Shankar Parit Aliyas Motekar v. Shri. Prakash Vasant Motekar

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

Ashok Shankar Katenavvar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Amoghasiddheshwar Electricals Vs the Managing Director

Sri Ashok S/O Ramchandra Bhar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

The Executive Board of Vs the State of Karnataka

Dayanandagouda Vs the Superintendent of Police

Suresh S/O Shivappa Bangari Vs the Deputy Commissioner