Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Bandi Ningaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2022

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                                                  -1-
                                                               WP No. 5991 of 2020




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                              BEFORE

                                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 5991 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SRI BANDI NINGAIAH
                            SON OF LATE BANDI NINGAIAH
                            AGE ABOUT 67 YEARS

                      2.    SMT GOWRAMMA
                            W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY
                            AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS

                      3.    ASHWINI P
Digitally signed by
JUANITA                     D/O LATE PUTTASWAMY
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                            AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS
KARNATAKA

                      4.    SRI KUMAR P
                            S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY
                            AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS

                      5.    SRI KRISHNA P
                            S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY
                            AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS

                            PETITIONER RESIDING AT NO 2591
                            5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
                            K G KOPPAL
                            MYSORE CITY - 570008
                                                                  ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY MISS. PRAKRUTHI H.A., ADVOCATE FOR
                          SRI. IRFZNA NAZEER., ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                       WP No. 5991 of 2020




AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT
     VIKAS SOUDHA
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU - 560001

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     D C OFFICE
     KRISHNARAJA BLVD ROAD
     K G KOPPAL
     KAJJIHUNDI
     MYSURU - 570001

3.   THE TAHASHILDAR
     TALUK OFFICE
     MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
     NAZAR BAD
     MYSURU - 570010

                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
    SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR
    IMPLEADING APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8)


       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
MADE BY THE PETITIONERS AT ANNEXURE-L AND TRANSFER
OF KATHA OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY IN THEIR NAMES AND
ETC.


       THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -3-
                                                    WP No. 5991 of 2020




                                ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The prayer made in this writ petition is to consider the representation given by the petitioners at Annexure-L dated 21.09.2017. In Annexure-L, the petitioners are seeking mutation entry to be carried out in the land records in terms of the judgment and decree passed in R.F.A.No.339/2013 connected with R.F.A.No.249/2013.

2. On the last occasion, learned Counsel Sri.M.V.Chandrachooda, appearing for the impleading applicant in I.A.No.1/2022 has brought to the notice of this Court that the judgment and decree passed in R.F.A.No.339/2013 c/w R.F.A.No.249/2013 was recalled by this Court by order dated 13.11.2020. Therefore, it was submitted that the prayer made in this writ petition would not survive for consideration. However, at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioners, the matter was adjourned to this day.

-4-

WP No. 5991 of 2020

3. In the light of the subsequent development, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the impleading applicant, the prayer made in this writ petition will not survive for consideration. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.

4. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE DL