IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.8699/2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Kalavathi, D/o. Hombanna, Aged about 28 years, R/at Vajarahalli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara District – 571 511. …Petitioner (By Sri. Pavana Chandra Shetty H., Advocate) AND:
1. Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara – 571 511.
2. Panchayath Development Officer, Ramanagara District, Bannikuppe (B) Grama Panchayath, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk – 571 511. ...Respondents (By Sri. K.N. Puttegowda, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct respondent 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation made on 21.01.2019 herewith marked as Annexure-A for issuing Gramatana Katha as per the registered Gift Deed dated 30.05.2013 marked as Annexure-C in the name of petitioner herein and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner is stated to be the owner of residential site bearing katha No.45/2003 situated at Vajarahalli Gramatana, Bannikuppe Grama Panchayath, Bidadi Hobli, Ramangara District, measuring East to West 50’ and North to South 70’.
2. Petitioner states that her father was the owner of the property and katha was standing in the name of her father earlier and katha entries standing in the name of the petitioner’s father have been produced as Annexures – F series. Petitioner further states that consequent to the Gift Deed executed by the petitioner’s father dated 30.05.2013, the petitioner has sought for making necessary entries from the name of the petitioner’s father into the name of the petitioner.
3. Petitioner submits that the respondent- authorities have not considered the application of the petitioner despite katha standing in the name of the petitioner’s father at Annexures – F series.
4. Learned counsel for respondent-authorities submits that there is some discrepancy with respect to the request of the petitioner vis-à-vis earlier katha standing in the name of the petitioner’s father. It is further submitted that the request of the petitioner with respect to transfer of katha as regards the extent of the property standing in the name of the petitioner’s father in the earlier katha records would be considered without insisting on production of title deeds other than the Gift Deed. However, if any extent is claimed beyond the extent of property as standing in the records as regards the petitioner’s father, necessary records would have to be furnished.
5. Taking note of the said submission, petition is disposed off directing the respondent-authorities to consider the request of the petitioner and pass necessary orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
6. It is also made clear that taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for respondents that if the katha request is with respect to the extent as that of the petitioner’s father’s katha as found at Annexures – F series, the said representation would be considered expeditiously. However, if the request of the petitioner for effecting katha entry on the basis of the Gift Deed, is at variance in extent to katha standing in the name of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner would co-operate and furnish such other documents as may be required.
Accordingly, petition is disposed off, subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE SV