KRISHNARAJ v. KUNIGAL
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
this observation writ petition stands allowed to the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records it would to go show that as per final decree passed in O.S.149/88 the property in question has fallen to the share of petitioner herein pursuant to which the revenue…
Judgment
(BY SRI. PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT 2 REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA HOBLI 2 KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.01.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS INCLUDING RTC & ROR. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned advocates it is taken up for final disposal.
Heard Sri. Patel D. Karegowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned HCGP for respondents. 3
Petitioner claims that his father had purchased the land measuring 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.9 of Boralinganapalya, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk and revenue records was mutated in the name of his father and continued as such. It is contended by petitioner along with his brother and sister he filed a suit in O.S.149/88 against his other brothers and family members seeking partition and possession of the joint family property and said suit came to be decreed on
03.11.98 based on a compromise petition under which the land in question has fallen to the share of petitioner. It is contended that by virtue of such decree passed petitioner made request orally to the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in the RTC and one such representation was made to first respondent as per Annexure-K and Village accountant put up a note for further orders on 23.06.2011 and revenue inspector has 4 also reiterated the opinion of Village accountant in his report dated 17.01.2012 as per Annexure-L and inspite of it steps have not been taken to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and as such petitioner is seeking for a direction to consider his representation dated 09.01.2009 Annexure-K submitted to first respondent.
Operative part
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records it would to go show that as per final decree passed in O.S.149/88 the property in question has fallen to the share of petitioner herein pursuant to which the revenue authorities namely Village accountant and revenue inspector have also affirmed the said fact as per their note put up for higher authorities as per Annexure-L. In that view of the matter it would meet the ends of justice if first respondent is directed to consider the representation of 5 petitioner dated 09.01.2009 Annexure-K on merits and in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Respondent is at liberty to consider all issues at the time of examining the prayer of petitioner as made in the representation dated 09.01.2009 Annexure-K. With this observation writ petition stands allowed to the extent observed herein above. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE SBN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: this observation writ petition stands allowed to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.