Allowed

Sri L Nayanisha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024WP/25995/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus to direct the Tahsildar to act on their representation seeking katha changes after acquiring land by registered sale deed. The court allowed the petition and directed the Tahsildar to examine the conveyance and pass orders under Section 128 within three months.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to consider representation dated 12.09.2023, verify sale deed dated 18.08.2023 and pass appropriate orders under law within three months.

Sri L Nayanisha Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39471 WP No. 25995 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25995 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. L. NAYANISHA

¶9

S/O DR A. LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶10

SRI. L. KARTIKESHA S/O DR. A LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶11

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO 77, 7^TH CROSS 3RD MAIN, C T BED LAYOUT BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE HOSAKEREHALLI BENGALURU-560 085.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REP. BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

¶14

SMT. K.G. LATHA W/O DR. A. LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.77, 7^TH CROSS 3^RD MAIN, C.T. BED LAYOUT BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE HOSAKERAHALLI BENGALURU-560 085.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. K.S. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39471 WP No. 25995 of 2024

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARMENT OF REVENUE MS BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR ARASIKERE ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDR ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD: 12.09.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-A.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to consider

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39471 WP No. 25995 of 2024

¶29

petitioners representation dated 12.09.2023 as per

¶30

Annexure-A.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶32

Petitioners are claiming to be the joint owners of petition property. Petitioners assert right and title based on sale deed dated 18.08.2023. Having acquired title, petitioners have submitted a representation annexing a copy of sale deed and a request is made to respondent No.2/Tahsildar to effect changes in the katha.

¶33

On receipt of objections raised by one B.R.Prasanna Kumar, the respondent No.2/Tahsildar has issued a communication bearing No.18:2023-24 dated 02.09.2023 addressed to the petitioners calling upon them

¶34

to appear for personal hearing on 05.09.2023. Petitioners contend that though sale deed is dated 18.08.2023, there is a clear inaction on the part of respondent No.2/Tahsildar.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39471 WP No. 25995 of 2024

¶36

Learned AGA, however, has countered the

¶37

petitioners claim by contending that petitioners instead of appearing for personal hearing having received a communication bearing No.18:2023-24 dated 02.09.2023 issued by the Tahsildar, have approached the Court.

¶38

Be that as it may. The petitioners are asserting

¶39

title base on registered sale deed dated 18.08.2023. A representation is submitted by the petitioners annexing copy of sale deed. If petitioners have reported to respondent No.2/Tahsildar in regard to acquisition of right in the immovable property based on a registered sale deed, respondent No.2/Tahsildar is required to take note of the sale deed and pass appropriate orders under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Even if there are objections by any person to the application seeking change of katha, the respondent No.2/Tahsildar shall bear in mind the scope of enquiry contemplated under Section 128. If there is any challenge to the mutation questioning the registered document, the

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39471 WP No. 25995 of 2024

¶41

respondent No.2/Tahsildar shall bear in mind the law laid down by this Court and has to relegate the parties disputing the sale deed to approach the Civil Court. Once acquisition of rights in immovable property is reported based on registered sale deed, there is a mandatory duty cast on the jurisdictional Tahsildar to effect changes strictly aligning with the conveyance indicated in the registered document. Party disputing the sale deed needs to be relegated to approach Civil Court.

¶42

For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶45

(ii) The respondent No.2/Tahsildar shall examine the conveyance indicated in the registered sale deed dated 18.08.2023 and after verifying the records shall consider the petitioners representation dated 12.09.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law;

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:39471 WP No. 25995 of 2024

¶48

(iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶49

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri L Nayanisha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri L Nayanisha v. the State of Karnataka

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

C D Mukundappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Narayanappa S/O Marisonnappa Vs Sri Pillappa

Vasu Bangera Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gayathri Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Janardhan S N Vs Deputy Commissioner