Dismissed

Smt Parvathamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024WP/7742/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue mutation orders passed on a civil decree favouring respondent No.4. Her appeal against the decree had been restored after dismissal for non-prosecution, but no stay of the decree existed. The court found no error in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed with liberty to seek mutation upon success in the pending appeal.

Smt Parvathamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:46357 WP No. 7742 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 7742 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PARVATHAMMA, WIFE OF SRI. HANUMANTHRAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VEERAPURA GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K.M. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,

¶13

KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA,

¶16

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:46357 WP No. 7742 of 2022

¶19

SRI. MUNIRANGAIAH, SON OF SRI MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT VEERAPURA GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. HARISH A.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.02.2022 PASSED BY THE R-1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN REVISION PETITION NO.7/2020 VIDE ANNX-J AND ORDER DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN RA(DO) 112 OF 2014-15 VIDE ANNX-F AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.11.2019,

¶27

passed by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-F) to the writ petition and aggrieved by the impugned order dated

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:46357 WP No. 7742 of 2022

¶30

21.02.2022, passed by respondent No.1 (vide Annexure-J to the writ petition), the present writ petition is filed.

¶31

The subject matter of the writ petition pertains to mutating the name of the owner in the revenue entries in respect of 0.19 Guntas of land in Survey No.6/3 of Veerapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. The ownership regarding the said land is said to be the subject matter of civil suits being agitated between the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the original suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.4 and the said judgment and decree have been challenged by way of filing an appeal. It is further submitted that the said appeal also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, on the ground that the judgment and decree passed in the original suit in favour of respondent No.4 have attained finality, the impugned orders have been passed. It is further submitted that the orders dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner have been now recalled

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46357 WP No. 7742 of 2022

¶33

and the appeal is restored to the file. It is prayed on the said ground that the impugned orders have to be set aside.

¶34

The petitioner has not produced the relevant particulars of the original suit and the appeal. Admittedly, there has been no interim orders staying the operation of the judgment and decree is said to have been passed in favour of respondent No.4 by the trial Court, declaring him as the owner of the subject property. Under the said circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned orders.

¶35

For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.

¶36

However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner, if she were to succeed in the appeal and the appellate Court were to hold that the petitioner is the owner of the property, she can always make the necessary application to the concerned

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:46357 WP No. 7742 of 2022

¶39

authorities to have the revenue entries regarding the property mutated in her name.

¶40

Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of.

¶41

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶42

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT: BHK

Smt Parvathamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Parvathamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

M/S K Gowda and Co. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri Abdul Sab S/O Late Abdul Rehaman Sab Vs the Thasildar

Sri C Ramaiah Reddy Vs Uinion of India

Sri. L Jitendra Jain Vs the Government of Karnataka

Gopalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesha a Vs the State of Karnataka