Allowed

Smt H S Madhumathi Bai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/9069/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an endorsement issued by the Arsikere City Municipal Council stating her property mutation application would be considered only after disposal of pending cases. The Court found no pending cases or objections in the record and quashed the endorsement.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order within one month.

Smt H S Madhumathi Bai Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:36980 WP No. 9069 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 9069 OF 2019 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT H S MADHUMATHI BAI W/O JAYA PRAKASH NARAYANA RAO AGE 50 YEARS R/AT NO.334, "BHANU", 8TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, AKKITHIMMANAHALLI LAYOUT SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RELP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶14

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ARSIKERE 573 103.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SPOORTHI.V HCGP FOR R-1; VIDYA SELVAMANY FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 12.04.2018 VIDE ANNX-D ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO CHANGE/MUTATE THE NAME OF

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:36980 WP No. 9069 of 2019

¶20

THE PETITIONER AS THE KHATEDAR OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking for

¶25

quashing of Annexure-D passed by second respondent dated 12.04.2018.

¶26

The brief facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition are as under –

¶27

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of the schedule property and she claims to be

¶28

the absolute owner and in possession of the schedule property and she acquired the same under the registered sale deed dated 17.03.1997. The vendor of the petitioner formed a layout under the jurisdiction of Henjagondanahalli Gram Panchayat. During the year 2008, the Gram Panchayat was merged with the City Municipality, Arsikere. After merging, the Gram Panchayat

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36980 WP No. 9069 of 2019

¶30

with Arsikere City Municipality the petitioner applied for change of khata by mutating her name as khatedar of the suit schedule property to the respondent No.2 along with required documents. The respondent No.2 issued an endorsement stating that application for change of khata will be considered after the disposal of cases. The petitioner aggrieved by Annexure-D filed this Writ Petition.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no cases pending before any Court in respect of matters in question and he submitted that respondent No.2 without considering the documents produced by the petitioner has issued an endorsement stating that the application of the petitioner will be considered after the disposal of the cases. He submitted that there are no particulars about the alleged cases in respect of the property in question. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is contrary to the records.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:36980 WP No. 9069 of 2019

¶35

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the Writ Petition.

¶36

When a specific query was put to respondent No.2 that, whether any cases are pending in respect of the property in question, the learned counsel for the respondent was unable to reply.

¶37

Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

It is not in dispute that, the petitioner had purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 17.03.1997. The name of the petitioner was entered in the panchayath records. The Gram Panchayat was merged with the Arsikere City Municipality. After merger, the petitioner submitted an application for change of katha in her name, but the respondent No.2 had issued an endorsement stating that the application of the petitioner would be considered after the disposal of the cases.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36980 WP No. 9069 of 2019

¶40

On perusal of Annexure-D, it does not disclose the particulars of the alleged cases and further nobody has filed the objection to the application submitted by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 inspite of changing the katha in the name of the petitioner has issued an endorsement. The endorsement has been issued by respondent No.2 without any basis. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶41

In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶42

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶43

HNM

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Smt H S Madhumathi Bai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt H S Madhumathi Bai 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narasimhaiah S/O Late Ugrappa Vs Revanna S/O Ugrappa Alias Ugraiah

Mohammed Abbas Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Gangaiah Since Dead by His Lrs

Davanagere Smart City Limited (Dscl) Vs M/S Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solution Limited

Smt. Kemappamma Vs Renuka

Mr Anto Michael Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shilpa Prakasha Angadi Vs the Commissioner