Partly allowed

Sri Doddamuniyappa v. Zilla Panchayat

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024WP/19373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the plea in part, quashing an impugned endorsement rejecting a request for revenue entries. The Court directed the third respondent to inspect the property and draw a Mahazar before deciding, noting that disputed boundary questions should be resolved in a suit rather than revenue proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Endorsement quashed; proceedings restored; third respondent directed to inspect property and draw Mahazar to decide on revenue entry.

Sri Doddamuniyappa Vs Zilla Panchayat — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46093 WP No. 19373 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19373 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. DODDAMUNIYAPPA S/O THIMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT GOPASANDRA VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

ZILLA PANCHAYAT

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶12

REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶13

EXECUTIVE OFFICER MALUR TALUK PANCHAYAT MALUR

¶14

KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶15

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER R/A KONDASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, TEKAL HOBIL, MALUR TALUK

¶16

KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:46093 WP No. 19373 of 2024

¶19

SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O DASAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/A BYRATHNAHALLI VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.B.J. SOMAYAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SMT. N. SHWETHA NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DHANAJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 SERVED)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. KO.GRAM.PAM.KHATHE/37/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-3 DATED 23.05.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNX-H AND ALSO TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING R-3 TO EFFECT KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE NORTHER HALF PORTION OF PROPETY BEARING V P KHATHA NO.260 OF BYRATHNAHALLI VILLAGE OF TEKALHOBLI, MALUR TALUK MEASURING EAST TO WEST 48 FEET, NORTH TO SOUTH 24 FEET, ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:46093 WP No. 19373 of 2024

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by the third respondent's endorsement dated 23.05.2024 [ Annexure-H ]. The third respondent has issued this impugned endorsement stating that the petitioner has sought for revenue entries [Khata] for the property measuring East to West 48 feet and North to South 24 feet relying upon a Gift Deed executed by Smt. Beeramma wife of Sri Thoti Muniyappa in favour of her daughter-in-law asserting that the northern portion of the property [which is conveyed under this Deed] is shown to belong to the petitioner's father, but his request cannot be considered because the fourth respondent has filed objections stating that he has been issued with the building license showing a road to the south of his property.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:46093 WP No. 19373 of 2024

¶31

2. Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao, the

¶32

learned counsel for the petitioner, canvasses the following in support of the petitioner's grievance with the impugned Endorsement:

¶33

[a] that the father and his brother [Sri Thoti Muniyappa] together owned a larger property which they partitioned orally with the petitioner's father's brother [Sri Thoti Muniyappa] taking the property measuring 55ft. x 24ft. and the petitioner's father taking the remaining extent measuring 48ft. x 24 ft.,

¶34

[b] that Smt. Beeramma wife of Thoti Muniyappa has executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter-in-law transferring the property measuring 60ft. x 24 ft. showing that this property is bounded on its north by the property allotted to the petitioner's father,

¶35

[c] that the fourth respondent's property is to the south of the petitioner's

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46093 WP No. 19373 of 2024

¶37

property, and these properties, even according to the fourth respondent, is only bifurcated by a passage which measures 3 ft. in width, and hence, the third respondent could not have rejected the petitioner's request for Khata.

¶38

Sri. Dhananjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent relying upon a copy of the representation dated 20.02.2024 which is filed with the third respondent, submits that if Khata is issued in favour of the petitioner, as is claimed, this respondent's rights would be prejudiced as this respondent is in possession of the property bounded by a passage to its south for multiple decades. Sri B.G. Somayaji, the learned counsel for the third respondent, submits that this Court will have to consider that the petitioner is requesting for change of Khata with respect to a property which is assigned ID No.260 but the Gram Panchayat would not issue

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:46093 WP No. 19373 of 2024

¶41

any Khata with such number and if it is indeed issued, it is by the erstwhile Mandal Panchayat.

¶42

This Court must observe that if the petitioner contends that the property inherited from his father is bounded on the north by the fourth respondent's property, the fourth respondent contends that his property is bounded by a passage that measures 3 ft. in width. The primary questions will be such as whether the properties claimed by the petitioner and the fourth respondent are adjacent properties. However, the third respondent has issued the impugned Endorsement without inspection to verify the factual position onsite.

¶43

The third respondent must therefore be called upon to visit the property/ies after notice to the concerned, draw up a Mahazar and then decide upon whether there must be Khata in favour of the petitioner or not. If any party has any grievance with the third respondent’s conclusions after such

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:46093 WP No. 19373 of 2024

¶46

inspection and Mahazar being drawn, the concerned party should workout remedy in a properly instituted suit instead of trying to sort out the disputed questions in revenue proceedings. Hence, the following

¶47

ORDER

¶48

[A] The petition is allowed in part quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 23.05.2024 and restoring the proceedings to the third respondent, who shall issue notices of inspection, inspect the property under a Mahazar and then decide on the petitioner's request based on whether the fourth respondent's property is bounded by a passage and whether the petitioner is entitled to any revenue entries for the property, if any, after the asserted passage.

¶49

[B] It is needless to observe that it would be

¶50

open to both the petitioner and the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:46093 WP No. 19373 of 2024

¶53

fourth respondent to file documents, if

¶54

any, at the time of spot inspection.

¶55

[C] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the third respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy. If so filed, the third respondent shall conclude the proceedings and communicate the decision within [3] three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶56

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶57

Sri Doddamuniyappa v. Zilla Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Doddamuniyappa v. Zilla Panchayat

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

Smt Sunandamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B. Eshwaramma Vs the State of Karnataka

V.K.Mohammed Afzal Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Sri S M Ramesh Vs the Chief Executioe Officer

Sri H.B. Basavaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shivakumar Vs the Mysuru Urban Development Authority