Smt. A.M.Janaki Yadav vs Tahsildar on 8 August, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. A.M.Janaki Yadav vs Tahsildar on 8 August, 2017

Bench: B.S. Patil

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

                           BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL

        WRIT PETITION NO.30197/2017 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:

SMT.A.M.JANAKI YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O. SRI PREM KUMAR,
R/AT HOUSE NO.794,
KANTOOR ROAD,
GOKULAM BADAVANE,
DEVARAJA MOHALLA,
MYSORE CITY - 570 001.
                                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHANTESH GUREDDI, ADV.)

AND:

1.     TAHSILDAR,
       HUNSUR TALUK,
       HUNSUR - 571 105.

2.     HONNAMMA,
       W/O. LATE SRI KEMPEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

3.     SRI.MACHEGOWDA,
       S/O. LATE SRI.KEMPEGOWDA,
       AGED AOBUT 30 YEARS.

4.     SRI.K.NAGENDRA,
       S/O. LATE SRI.KEMPEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
                              2




     RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
     R/AT HOUSE NO.1323,
     4TH CROSS, B.N.ROAD,
     MANDI MOHALLA,
     MYSORE CITY - 570 001.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-1 TAHSILDAR,
HUNSUR TALUK, HUNSUR DATED 17.02.2017 AT ANNEXURE-G.

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

                        ORDER

Learned AGA takes notice for respondent No.1.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned AGA.

3. Petitioner is calling in question endorsement dated 17.02.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Hunsur Taluk, Hunsur as per annexure-Q. By the said endorsement, petitioner has been asked to make his grievance before the Appellate Forum, as the Tahsildar has already certified the mutation entries vide MRH1/2015-16 based on which, Khatha had been 3 entered in respect of Sy.No.78 of Devarahalli Village, Bilikere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk.

4. Case of the petitioner is that land in question was sold by respondents 2 to 4 along with one K.Ramesh by executing registered sale deed dated 11.05.2006 in his favour. A dispute having arisen between the family members of the vendors, a suit had been filed in O.S.No.199/2007 for partition and separate possession. The said suit has been decreed holding that plaintiffs therein were entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that excluding 1/6th share, in respect of remaining extent, name of the petitioner ought to have been entered by the Tahsildar while effecting the mutation. But, by mistake, the Tahsildar has entered the name of petitioner along with respondents 2 to 4 herein as Khathedars. As a result, it is urged that the Tahsildar has ignored the registered sale deed and the title transferred in favour of petitioner while effecting the mutation entries. 4 Petitioner had moved the Tahsildar by filing a representation seeking correction of the mistake committed. The Tahsildar has issued the impugned endorsement stating that as he had already effected the mutation entries, petitioner was required to approach the Appellate Authority.

6. I do not find any illegality in the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar. As he had already effected the mutation entries the Tahsildar becomes functus-officio. Therefore, petitioner is required to file an appeal challenging the certification of the mutation entries before the Assistant Commissioner. If such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority has to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

Reserving such liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of declining to interfere in the matter at this stage.

Learned AGA may file memo of appearance for respondent No.1 within three weeks.

Sd/-

JUDGE VM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court