Disposed

Muniyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WP/6611/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to the Tahasildar to consider her representation for mutation of revenue entries over granted land. The court directed respondent No.4 to consider the representation within three months in accordance with law and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to consider representation dated 15.02.2018 within three months from receipt of copy of the order.

Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20443 WP No. 6611 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 6611 OF 2022 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUNIYAMMA,

¶9

W/O. LATE MARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NARSANDRA VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 5^TH FLOOR, AMBEDKAR VEDHI,

¶14

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶16

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE A C OFFICE, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR, MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 12.0

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:20443 WP No. 6611 of 2022

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-4 TO EXPEDIT DECISION ON THE REPRESENTATION, DATED 15.02.2018 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶28

In this writ petition petitioner sought for direction to respondent No.4 to consider representation (Annexure - A) and to effect the revenue entries in the name of petitioner as per Annexure - B.

¶29

It is the grievance of the petitioner that, the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure - D and the respondent authorities have granted the same in favour of other similarly placed applicants vide Annexure-B.

¶30

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, the respondent No.4 is directed to consider the representation dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure-A)

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:20443 WP No. 6611 of 2022

¶33

within outer limit of three months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner has to establish right over the property in question, the document referred to above are fictitious documents. However, it is open for the respondent No.4 to take decision in the matter in accordance with law.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Muniyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniyamma 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

Zilla Harijana Shishitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr P Padmavathi Rao Vs the Tahsildar

K a Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mohini Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh B G Vs the State of Karnataka