M Gayathri vs State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M Gayathri vs State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2022

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

       WRIT PETITION NO.57833 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.     M.GAYATHRI
       W/O MANJUNATH
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2.     K.MANJUNATH
       S/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

       BOTH ARE R/AT KOTE, HOSKOTE TOWN
       BANGALORE RURAL DIST.-562 114.
                                             ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI. BABU, ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT
       VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE-560 001.

2.     COMMISSIONER
       HOSAKOTE TOWN MUNICIPALITY
       HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562 114.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA GOUNDAR, AGA., FOR R1;
    SRI. KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER
PASSED BY THE R2 SETTING ASIDE THE KATHA ORDER DATED
22.08.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
                               2




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

                         ORDER

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing old Khaneshmari no.78, new no.2960/2565/89/92 measuring East - West 120 ft., North - South 150 ft., situated at Kote, Hosakote town, Bengaluru Rural District, having acquired the same by virtue of gift deed dated 09.04.2015 executed by his father. In pursuance of the said gift deed, the name of the petitioner was registered as owner to an extent of 150 ft. X 120 ft. in the property register maintained by respondent no.2.

Such being the case, respondent no.2 rectified the property register record in respect of said property by modifying the extent of land from 150 ft. X 120 ft. to 25 ft. X 79 ft. on the basis of decree passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court in O.S.No.849/1977. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed. 3

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the extent of the land has been modified in the mutation register by respondent no.2 without issuing notice and said rectification is contrary to the registered gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the property register record has been rectified on the basis of the decree passed in O.S.No.849/1977 and also the actual extent of the land available. Hence, he submits that the rectification of the property register record by respondent no.2 is in accordance with law and same does not warrant interference.

4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties.

5. Perusal of the property register record indicates that initially name of the petitioner was mutated as owner to an extent of 150 ft. X 120 ft. in respect of the subject property. However, the property register record 4 has been rectified by modifying the extent of land as 25ft.X79ft. However, property register record was rectified by respondent no.2 without issuing notice to the petitioner so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he is the owner of the land to an extent of 150ft. X 120 ft. having acquired the same through the registered gift deed. Hence, the rectification of the property register modifying the extent of the land as 25 ft. X 79 ft. is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the same is not sustainable. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER The Writ Petition is allowed. The rectification of the property register record dated 22.08.2015 maintained by respondent no.2, insofar it relates to rectification of the extent of the subject property from 150 ft. X 120 ft. to 25 ft. X 79 ft. is hereby quashed.

Respondent no.2 is at liberty to take steps for rectifying the extent of the land in respect of subject 5 property in the property register record maintained by it in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner.

All contentions are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE Psg*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court