K Malleshappa S/O Late Sri Kurubara Doddappa Alias Doddanna v. the Ballari City Corporation

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2025WP/102502/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata transfer; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Ballari City Corporation; representation dated 02.02.2024 Annexure-E; O.S.No.348/1986 adverse possession decree set aside in R.S.A.No.70/1991 (judgment dated 02.12.1997); R.A.No.18/1989 dismissed 05.11.1990; endorsement dated 21.09.1993; four-week compliance direction; LB-RES; Dharwad Bench; Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2024 (Annexure-E) and pass suitable orders in accordance with law in light of the judgment in R.S.A.No.70/1991 dated 02.12.1997, to be completed within four weeks of receipt of copy of the order. ¶ORDER

K Malleshappa S/O Late Sri Kurubara Doddappa… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶ORDER

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are bound to consider and act upon the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2024 (Annexure-E) seeking entry/transfer of Khata in respect of the suit property. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Petition allowed; writ of mandamus issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2024 vide Annexure-E and pass suitable orders in accordance with law, on considering the judgment passed in R.S.A.No.70/1991 dated 02.12.1997.

¶ORDER

Ratio / Principle

The consideration exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶ORDER

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (single judge, Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), W.P. No.102502 of 2025 (LB-RES), decided 11.06.2025 — Mandamus for consideration of Khata-transfer representation. The petitioner, son of late Kurubara Doddappa @ Doddanna, sought a direction to the Ballari City Corporation to consider his representation dated 02.02.2024 (Annexure-E) for entering his name and those of the legal representatives of his father's brothers' wives (late Shivalingamma and late Kurubara Thippamma) in respect of house bearing Door No.16, Ward No.9, Ballari. The property had been the subject of O.S.No.348/1986 (declaration of title by adverse possession and injunction), decreed on 20.03.1989, affirmed in R.A.No.18/1989 on 05.11.1990, but reversed in R.S.A.No.70/1991 whereby this Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree (judgment dated 02.12.1997). An endorsement dated 21.09.1993 had deferred Khata transfer until disposal of the second appeal. Counsel for the respondents stated the representation would be considered if reasonable time were granted. Allowing the petition, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation in accordance with law in light of the R.S.A.No.70/1991 judgment dated 02.12.1997, and to complete the exercise within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7548 WP No. 102502 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102502 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K. MALLESHAPPA S/O. LATE SRI KURUBARA DODDAPPA @ DODDANNA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT. HOUSE NO.62, WARD NO.10, KURUBARA STREET, NEAR BIG MARKET, BALLARI-583101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MISS V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE BALLARI CITY CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

¶13

BALLARI-583101.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, BALLARI CITY CORPORATION, BALLARI-583101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR

¶17

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶18

(BY SRI. S.S. CHALAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 02.02.2024 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS FATHER'S BROTHER'S WIVES, LATE SMT. SHIVALINGAMMA AND LATE SMT. KURUBARA THIPPAMMA FOR THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7548 WP No. 102502 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶26

Heard learned counsel Smt.V.Vidya for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri.S.S.Chalwadi for the

¶27

respondents.

¶28

This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.02.2024 vide Annexure-E.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner’s father late Sri.Kurubara Doddappa @ Doddanna and his brothers, late Sri.Mariappa and late Sri.Lingappa were the absolute owners of the house bearing Door No.16, Ward No.9, Ballari town. It is submitted that one Kurubara Bheemanna s/o Linganna had filed a suit in O.S.No.348/1986 against the father of the petitioner Sri.Kurubara Doddappa @ Doddanna and against the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7548 WP No. 102502 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

wives of brothers of petitioner’s father namely

¶33

Shivalingamma w/o Mariappa and Kurubara Thippamma w/o Lingappa. The said original suit was filed seeking relief of declaration of title based on adverse possession and for injunction in respect of the house property. The said O.S.No.348/1986 came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 20.03.1989. The said order was challenged before the learned Civil Judge, Ballari in R.A.No.18/1989 by the defendants i.e., the father of the petitioner and the

¶34

wives of his brother. The said appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.348/1986 by judgment and decree dated 05.11.1990.

¶35

It is submitted that thereafter the defendants in O.S.No.348/1986 have filed R.S.A.No.70/1991 before this Court challenging the judgment and decree in R.A.No.18/1989 and O.S.No.348/1986. The said appeal came to be allowed by this Court setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.348/1986.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7548 WP No. 102502 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is further submitted that during the pendency

¶39

of R.S.A.No.70/1991, an endorsement dated 21.09.1993 came to be issued by the respondents on the objections raised by the father of the petitioner against transfer of Khata in the name of Kurubara Bheemanna, directing the petitioner to approach the office after disposal of regular second appeal. But however on 28.06.1999, said Kurubara Doddappa @ Doddanna, father of the petitioner died and subsequently the wives of brothers of petitioner’s father also died. It is submitted that despite the petitioner approaching the respondents requesting for transfer of Khata in the name of the petitioner and the legal heirs of father’s brother, no action has been taken by the respondents. However, on 02.02.2024 the petitioner made a representation to the respondents, but respondents have not acted upon. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

Learned counsel Sri.S.S.Chalawadi representing

¶41

the respondents submits that the representation so made

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7548 WP No. 102502 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

by the petitioner would be considered if reasonable time is granted in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. Petition is allowed.

¶47

ii. Writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.02.2024 vide Annexure-E and pass suitable orders in accordance with law on considering the judgment passed in R.S.A.No.70/1991 dated 02.12.1997.

¶48

iii. The said exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶49

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶50

KGK CT-MCK /List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

K Malleshappa S/O Late Sri Kurubara Doddappa Alias Doddanna v. the Ballari City Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Malleshappa S/O Late Sri Kurubara Doddappa Alias Doddanna v. the Ballari City Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Gururaj Kulkarni, Vs the Managing Director

Shri. Kumar Hattikal Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxmi Nilesh Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Beeranna Nayak S/O Late Venkatramana Nayak Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Swami Shivanand S/O Yallappa Naik Hattennavar Alias Yelival Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Ashok S/O Mallappa Nidavani Vs the Deputy Commissioner