Disposed

Smt Shantha Bai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024WP/17438/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of khata/revenue entries based on her father-in-law's will after the municipal authority took no action on an objection notice. The Court disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation within four weeks for consideration by the municipal commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation for transfer of revenue entries within four weeks; no other relief granted.

Smt Shantha Bai Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50361 WP No. 17438 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17438 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT SHANTHA BAI W/O LATE J KRISHNALAL NAIK, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT OPP RA. SU RANGAMANDIRA, BENGALURU DHARWAD ROAD, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. K SHYAMSUNDAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶11

THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHITRADURGA 577 501.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SMT.SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:50361 WP No. 17438 of 2024

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN CASE NO.DCB(5) CR/02/2010-2011 DATED 08/04/2011 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHITRADURGA, VIDE ANNX-A. B) DIRECT THE R2 THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHITRADURGA TO TRANSFER KATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The petitioner contends that [a] her fatherin-law, Sri Jatra Naik, was the owner of the property bearing Khata No.240, Nagara Sabha Assessment No.7556/3540, Ward No.33/1 measuring 178+42/2 and 150+725/2 situated at Bengaluru Dharwad Road, Chitradurga, [b] that her father-in-law has executed his Last Will and Testament dated

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:50361 WP No. 17438 of 2024

¶22

10.05.1960 in favour of her husband, [c] that her husband died on 24.01.2012, and [d] that the second respondent had caused notice inviting objections if any when her husband filed an application for change of revenue entries based on the Last Will and Testament, but no action has been taken. The petitioner, relying upon these assertions, seeks directions to the second respondent to give her the benefit of revenue entries.

¶23

Sri S. Mahesh, the learned counsel for the second respondent, points out that the petitioner has not filed any representation with the second respondent after the notice dated 08.04.2011, and the learned counsel contends that this Court must therefore dispose of the petition directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will file a representation but there must be direction for expeditious consideration.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:50361 WP No. 17438 of 2024

¶26

In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation with the second respondent for transfer of revenue entries for the subject property. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file such representation within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶27

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶28

Smt Shantha Bai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shantha Bai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S G M Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Rasheed Vs the Commissioner

Dr. R. Yatish Ramalingaiah Vs the Bbmp Commissioner

Sri K Swarup Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Lupin Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike