Disposed

Smt.M.Lakshmidevamma v. the Chief Officer

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024WP/4673/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought transfer of khata/revenue entries for property gifted to her by her husband after the municipal council refused. The court disposed of the petition directing the council to consider the request within eight weeks and give clear reasons if refusing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider petitioner's khata change application within eight weeks with reasons if refused.

Smt.M.Lakshmidevamma Vs the Chief Officer — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49623 WP No. 4673 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4673 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.M.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O. MR.K. CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,NO.124 KUDUREGERE VILLAGE, BETTAHALSOOR VIA TARAHUNSE POST,JALA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 157.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SATYANAND B S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE CHIEF OFFICER HUNASAMARANAHALLI TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 4JV9 86, HUNASAMARANAHALLI BANGALORE-562 157.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. S V BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF KATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AS PER

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:49623 WP No. 4673 of 2023

¶19

ANNEXURE-F AND G, IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner asserts that her husband [ Sri. K. Channarayappa ], the owner of property measuring 1350 Sq. Ft. in the property bearing Site No.5638088363 [Old Katha No.71/124/1/124/1/67] of Kadiganahalli, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District [ the Subject Property ], has executed the Gift Deed dated 09.01.2023 in her favour, but the respondent has refused to transfer the revenue entries based on such Gift Deed.

¶23

Sri. S. V. Bhat, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that with the application by the petitioner, the respondent has published notice inviting objections and before such objections are

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:49623 WP No. 4673 of 2023

¶26

considered, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel is categorical that the petitioner's request would be considered strictly in accordance with law.

¶27

In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's request for change of revenue entries for the subject property within a period of eight [8] weeks from today observing that if the respondent is of the opinion that the petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of transfer of revenue entries, there must be clear articulation of the reasons therefor.

¶28

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶29

Smt.M.Lakshmidevamma v. the Chief Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.M.Lakshmidevamma v. the Chief Officer

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

Mr. Anand Annamalai Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Praneeth P Vs the State of Karnataka

Balaji Garden Layout Welfare Association Vs the Commissioner

B. Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Muthyala Karthik Vs the Commissioner

Sri S Manjunath Vs the Mysuru Urban Development Authority