Karnataka High Court
Syed Mehrunisa Begum W/O Sayed ... vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 26 August, 2013
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
W.P.NO.102746/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
WRIT PETITION NO.102746/2013 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Sayed Mehrunisa Begum,
W/o.Sayed Burhanuddin
Hussaini Preezade,
Age: 48 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o.Opp.Hashimper Darga,
Near Achar Katta,
Bijapur-586 101.
2. Sayyad Hajarabi Begum,
W/o.Sayyad Abdul Huseni
Pheerajhade,
Age: 78 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o.Hashimpeer Darga,
Bijapur-586 101.
Both are Rep. through their
Power of attorney,
Sayed Farid Pasha,
S/o.Sayed Javeed Pasha Inamdar,
Age: 23 years,
Occ: Student,
R/o.Hashimpeer Darga,
Bijapur-586 101. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Adv.)
2
W.P.NO.102746/2013
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Dept. of Land Revenue,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-1.
2. The Technical Assistant
to the Deputy Commissioner
and Ex-official DDLR,
Bijapur,
At Bijapur-585 101.
3. Mohamad Huseni,
S/o.Sayyed Murutaza
Huseni Preezade,
Major,
R/o.Hashimpeer Darga,
Bijapur-586 101.
4. Sayyed Murutaza Huseni,
S/o.Sayyed Mahmood
Huseni Preezade,
Major,
Occ: Sajjada Nashi,
Cum Managing Mutuwalli,
R/o.Hashimpeer Darga,
Bijapur-586 101. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.Sharanbasappa K.Babshetty, HCGP for R-1 & 2,
Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan, Adv. for R-3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Order
dt.14.8.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 in File
No.CTS/APL/SR/9/2012-13, refusing to grant the prayer
made in the application filed by the petitioners to stay all
further proceedings, the certified copy of which is at
Annexure-E.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:-
3
W.P.NO.102746/2013
ORDER
Petitioners who are respondents 1 and 2 in the case bearing No.CTS/APL/SR/9/2012-13 on the file of the Technical Assistant to Deputy Commissioner and Ex-official DDLR, Bijapur, is before this Court, praying for quashing the Order dated 14.08.2013 in the above said case, at Annexure 'E' and stay all further proceedings in the above said case till the disposal of suit in O.S.No.47/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Bijapur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners who are Plaintiffs 1 and 3 and seven others have filed a suit in O.S.No.47/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bijapur, against the respondent No.3 and three others for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit was filed on 25.04.2010. The respondents 3 and 4 herein have filed appeal under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the respondent No.2/authority to delete the names of the present petitioners and name of the deceased sisters of the appellant No.1. The petitioners entered appearance in the said appeal and filed an application dated 30.07.2013 under Section 151 of CPC read with Section 25 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act in the above said appeal before the respondent 4 W.P.NO.102746/2013 No.2/authority praying to stay further proceedings pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.47/2010, but the respondent No.2 rejected the application by passing the impugned Order, at Annexure 'E'. He further submits that authority can wait till the disposal of the suit and avoid multiplicity proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order.
4. Respondents 3 and 4 herein have filed appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the respondent No.2/authority in so far as the entries made in the CTS extract. Merely because the suit is filed for partition and separate possession, it cannot be a good ground to stay further proceedings in the appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order.
5. In the result, Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv*