IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.49864-49865/2016(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
DODDA SHETTY S/O VENKATA @ VENKATA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O K HONNALAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.D.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DY.COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571401.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION MANDYA-571401.
3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA II CIRCLE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
4. H.C. JAYARAMU S/O CHIKKA VENKATA SHETTY MAJOR, R/O NEAR DEVARAJ MARKET KANNIKA PARAMESHWARI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED K.R.CIRCLE, MYSORE-570 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT:H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI :VISHWANATH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY R-2 VIDE DATED:19.09.2011 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Shri D.S. Hosmath, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the property belonging to the petitioner’s father bearing Sy.No.168/3A measuring 1 acre and 3¼ guntas situated at K. Honnalagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk was mutated in the name of 4th respondent in M.R.No.73/2007-08. The petitioner challenged the said entry before the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 19.09.2011. Petitioner challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya and it has also been dismissed by order dated 1.12.2015. Hence, these writ petitions.
2. Smt. H.C. Kavitha, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3, in her usual fairness submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner before entering the name of 4th respondent in the revenue records.
3. Shri Vishwanath. H.M., learned Advocate for respondent No.4 submitted that the father of respondent No.4 has sold the property in the name of one Shri Kitty under a registered sale deed dated 24.01.2009 and as on date, the revenue entries have been made in the name of said Kitty. He is not a party in these proceedings. Therefore, no orders can be passed without him. This submission is not disputed by learned Advocate for the petitioner.
In view of the above, these writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-