Disposed

Sri.D. Devaraj v. Sri. Muniyappa

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024WP/4295/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trial court had appointed a Gram Panchayat PDO as court commissioner to survey suit property; petitioner objected that the Taluk Surveyor held relevant documents. Court directed trial court to additionally appoint the jurisdictional Taluk Surveyor as court commissioner, with petitioner bearing expenditure, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to appoint jurisdictional Taluk Surveyor as additional court commissioner besides PDO; petition disposed of on that modification.

Sri.D. Devaraj Vs Sri. Muniyappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11515 WP No. 4295 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4295 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. D. DEVARAJ S/O SRI DODDANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT GATTEPPA BUILDING, CHIKKABALLAPURA ROAD, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-577 011.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.N. UMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENKATENAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-577 011.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/12/2023, IN O.S. NO. 253/2016, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DEVANAHALLI (VIDE ANNEXURE-A HEREIN) ON IA IV AND CONSEQUENTLY APPOINT TALUK SURVEYOR AS THE COURT COMMISSIONER TO CONDUCT

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:11515 WP No. 4295 of 2024

¶17

SURVEY AND DEMARCATE THE ENCROACHED PORTION OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed in O.S.No.253/2016 by the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, insofar as it relates to allowing I.A.No.4 and appointing the Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) of Goddlumudenhalli Gramapanchayath as a court commissioner.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has committed an error in refusing to appoint the Taluk Surveyor and instead appointing the PDO of the said Gramapanchayath, since the said PDO would not have the custody of the relevant documents, which would be in the custody and possession of the jurisdictional Taluk surveyor, who should be appointed as the court commissioner.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11515 WP No. 4295 of 2024

¶24

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, submits that in addition to the PDO already appointed by the trial court, he would have no objection to appoint the Taluk surveyor also and necessary expenditure in this regard would be borne by the petitioner.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the trial court to appoint the jurisdictional Taluk surveyor as additional court commissioner in addition to the PDO of the Goddlumudenhalli Gramapanchayath already appointed as per the impugned order.

¶26

Subject to the aforesaid modification, petition stands disposed of.

¶27

Srl. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

Sri.D. Devaraj v. Sri. Muniyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.D. Devaraj v. Sri. Muniyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt P Manjula Vs Smt Jeeva Rani @ Srimati Jeevani

Smt. Haseen Fathima Vs Mr. Sanjay Prabhu

Sri Ramappa Vs Smt Thimmakka

Ald Automotive Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of

M/S. Sbr Promoters Vs the Assessment Unit

Sri Chokkareddy Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Tax GST