Karnataka High Court
Abdul Razak S/O Usmansab Takkalaki vs The Asst. Director Of Land Records & Ors on 18 January, 2013
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.100248/2013 (KLR-RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
ABDUL RAZAK
S/O. USMANSAB TAKKALAKI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. SHAHAPET, SUNAGAR GALLI
BIJAPUR - 586101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. S. HALALLI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
CITY LAND SURVEY OFFICE
BIJAPUR - 586101
2. M/S. HINGULAMBIKA COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,
R/O. TILAK ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101
REPT. BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
3. DR. RAMESH
S/O. VENKATESH DEVAGIRIKAR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTIONER
R/O. BIJAPUR - 586101
2
4. DR. ARUNA
W/O. DR. RAMESH DEVAGIRIKAR
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTIONER
BIJAPUR - 586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 TO R4 ARE DELETED V/O DATED 18.01.2013 )
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN
THE LIKE NATURE DIRECTING THE FIRST RESPONDENT
AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE RESPENTATION DATED
17.12.2012 AND EFFECT THE MUTATION IN THE NAME OF
THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF CTS NOS.D-62, D-63, D-
64 AND D-65 AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
DATED 08.12.2009 ANNEXURE-B AND H ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The subject matter of this writ petition is site bearing CTS Nos.D-62, D-63, D-64 and D-65 in ward No.III of Biajpur city, measuring 363.81 Sq. Mtrs., 602 Sq. Mtrs., 355.63 Sq. Mtrs., and 551.84 Sq. Mtrs 3 respectively. The petitioner has made an application as per Annexure-H dated 17.12.2012 requesting the 1st respondent to effect mutation in respect of the said sites in terms of the registered sale deed as per Annexure-B dated 08.12.2009. Since the 1st respondent has not considered the said representation, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the same.
2. I have the learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is evident that the petitioner has filed the representation as per Annexure-H requesting the 1st respondent to effect the mutation in terms of the sale deed referred above. There is no reason why the 1st respondent should not consider the representation at an early date. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the said representation at Annexure-H in accordance with law within a period of three months 4 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt