The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for conducting boundary demarcation (phodi durasthi) regarding joint family lands in Chikkaballapura, based on a compromised partition decree.
The writ petition was disposed of, and authorities were directed to conduct phodi durasthi as per the civil court decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 16890 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANDA H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:45227 WP No. 16890 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:45227 WP No. 16890 of 2024
R/AT MELURU, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SHDLATHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 102.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. M.J.ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN Pra.ja.ni.Rev.No.7/2023-24 DATED 01.04.2024 BY RESPONDENT NO.2 JOINT DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS BANGALORE DIVISION ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED IN Pa.Bhu.U.Ni./appeal/255/2022-23 DATED 04.07.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
The lands concerned are said to be joint family properties of petitioner and contesting respondents. It resulted in O.S.No.286/2019, a partition suit before Prl. Civil Judge
and JMFC, Chikkaballapura. There the parties have
entered into a compromise. Based on the compromise, decree has been passed. Parties have submitted the decree to respondent Nos.4 and 5 and have requested based on the same to do phodi durasthi of the lands concerned. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.4 passed the necessary orders. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.7 filed an appeal before respondent No.3, who has passed the impugned order (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition). Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, who has dismissed the same by order dated 01.04.2024 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition). Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.
concerned. There is no dispute that petitioner is entitled
to 2 acres of land and respondent No.7 is entitled to 31
guntas of land. The trial Court has passed a decree based on the compromise petition filed by the parties concerned and the said decree apportions the share of the property by way of metes and bounds. Revenue authorities are required to do phodi durasthi as per the decree passed by the trial Court. The impugned order at Annexure-B to the writ petition passed by respondent No.3, in short, orders the same. The same has been conferred by respondent No.2. I do not see any error in the same. However, for clarification the authorities are directed to conduct phodi durasthi as per the decree issued by Civil Court in O.S.No.286/2019.
3. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .
SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
PGG
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking direction for phodi durasthi based on a civil court decree should be allowed for clarification.
Smt. Akshitha K.A.
The State of Karnataka
The Joint Director of Land Records, Bangalore Division
The Technical Assistant and Deputy Director Land Records, Chikkaballapura District
The Tahasildar, Chikkaballapura Taluk
The Assistant Director of Land Records Chikkaballapura Taluk
M.I.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
