Dismissed

Prafulla v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WP/24046/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order restoring mutation entries pursuant to a registered sale deed; the court held the petitioner should seek redressal before the competent civil court and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prafulla Vs Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:18787 WP No. 24046 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 24046 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRAFULLA

¶8

S/O B. RAMASHETTY, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶9

1(A). NAGARAJA SHETTY

¶10

S/O LATE NEMANNA SHETTY,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶12

R/AT VASANTHA VIHAR, NEAR JAIN BASADI, MAIN ROAD PUTTUR, KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

1(B). REKHAKUMARI, W/O SHIVAPRASAD, D/O NAGARAJA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 41 ARUHA, ALADANGADY, BADAGAKARANDURU, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DK DISTRICT - 574 217.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE - 572 001.

¶19

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:18787 WP No. 24046 of 2016

¶21

PUTTUR, D.K. - 574 201.

¶22

TAHASILDAR PUTTUR, D.K. - 574 201.

¶23

K. UMMALIAMMA, W/O LATE K.P. ABDULLA, AGE: MAJOR.

¶24

FAZUL RAHIM S/O LATE K.P. ABDULLA, AGE: MAJOR

¶25

K. RAZIA, S/O LATE K.P. ABDULLA, AGE: MAJOR

¶26

ABBAS ALI ALTHAF S/O LATE K.P. ABDULLA, AGE: MAJOR

¶27

RUKSANA D/O LATE K.P. ABDULLA AGE: MAJOR.

¶28

RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 8 R/AT K.P.MANSION, PARLADKA, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE,

¶29

PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 574 201.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8)

¶32

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:11.3.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:18787 WP No. 24046 of 2016

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

In this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the order dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure-A).

¶38

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case of the petitioner is that the land in question was allotted in favour of her father late Yuvaraj as per the compromise decree in FDP.No.20/1961 (Annexure-C). Accordingly, the petitioner is claiming right over the property in question. It is also stated that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 have preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 stating that the land to an extent of 1.50 acres in Sy.No.114/1B1A1P2 of Puttur Kasaba Village was formerly belonging to one Brahamayya Shetty, from whom one Mariana Sequeria had taken the same on permanent lease (Moolageni) as per registered deed of Moolagene dated 11.11.1939.

¶39

It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the contesting respondent Nos.4 to 8 have purchased land in question as per registered sale deed dated 06.10.1980 (Annexure-R.1). In that view of the matter the mutation entries

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:18787 WP No. 24046 of 2016

¶42

have been made in favour of the contesting respondents herein.

¶43

The respondent No.2, herein has passed the order dated 11.06.2014, whereby undisputedly the contesting respondents herein were not parties before the said proceedings and ordered for change of entry in favour of the petitioner herein erroneously as per Annexure-B. The said order dated 11.06.2014 (Annexure-B) has been rightly interfered with by respondent No.1 vide order dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure-A) whereby the mutation entries have been made pursuant to the execution of the registered sale deed.

¶44

In that view of the matter, in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue entries made pursuant to the execution of registered sale deed referred to above, as per Annexure-R1, the petitioner herein be relegated to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of her grievance. Accordingly, the above writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Prafulla v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prafulla v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J Palaniswamy Vs the Tahasildar

Sri. Venkataramaiah Vs Principal Secretary

Sri K Sathish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Parameshwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sadananda Vs State of Karnataka