Sri Mahdevamurthy K R vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Mahdevamurthy K R vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2013

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2013

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

       WRIT PETITION NO.47598/2011 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI.MAHDEVAMURTHY K.R,
S/O.K.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.131, EWS 1ST STAGE,
K.H.B. COLONY,
KALKUNIKE,
HUNSUR TOWN-571 105.
MYSORE DISTRICT.
                                     ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.B.S.NAGARAJ, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
       SECRETARY,
       DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
       ADMINISTRATION,
       M.S.BUILDING,
       DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BANGALORE-560 001.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       MYSORE DISTRICT,
       MYSORE- 570 001.
                                   2


3.     THE CHIEF OFFICER,
       MUNICIPALITY OFFICE,
       HUNSUR-571 105.
                                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.MANJULA R.KAMADOLLI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2
    SMT.M.P.GEETHA DEVI, ADV. FOR R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R3 CHIEF OFFICER, HUNSUR TOWN
MUNICIPALITY    HUNSUR     TO    CONSIDER   THE
APPLICATION DT 8.11.11 MADE BY THE PETITIONER
VIDE ANNX-A.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                             ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to respondent No.3 to consider the application dated 08.11.2011 as at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner claims that the Town Municipality, Hunsur Town allotted a site bearing No. 309 as per the Town Municipality Special Site Allotment Committee meeting dated 05.01.1990. The petitioner is stated to have paid a sum of Rs.1,100/- in respect of the said allotment. The possession certificate dated 3 15.02.1990 is also stated to have issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner based on such claim is stated to have made an application to enter the khatha in respect of the said property in the name of the petitioner. Since, the same has not evoked any response from the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The learned counsel representing the respondent No.3 would submit that from the papers which have been produced along with the petition, the veracity of the claim as made by the petitioner cannot be vouched for. Hence, it is stated that if appropriate documents are produced before the respondent No.3, the veracity of such document and the claim as putforth by the petitioner would be examined in comparison with the documents and records of the respondent No.3 and only if any right is made out by the petitioner, the claim as made by the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law.

3. In the light of the above, a perusal of the papers produced along with the application in fact are the typed copies and would not indicate with certainity that right has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Hence, based on the said documents, I am of the opinion that no mandamus could be issued to grant khatha in favour of the petitioner. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file one more copy of the representation as at Annexure-A with the respondent No.3 with supporting documents for claim that is being made by the petitioner. On receipt of such representation along with the documents, the respondent No.3 would look into the same in comparison with the records maintained by the respondent No.3 to find out the veracity of the claim made by the petitioner and thereafter the decision taken by the respondent No.3 one way or the other in accordance with law shall be conveyed to the petitioner.

4. To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall now file the representation along with the 5 supporting documents and a certified copy of this order with the respondent No.3 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent No.3 shall thereafter take a decision one way or the other in accordance with law and communicate the result of such consideration to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than six weeks from the date on which the representation is made by the petitioner.

5. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court