Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.51548/2018(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
MR. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA KANGONNAHALLI VILLAGE MELUKOTE HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV. ON BEHALF OF SRI. THAMMAIAH H.N, ADVOATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
4 . THE TAHSILDAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
5 . THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER VINOBHA ROAD, MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO RESPONDENT TO TRANSFER KHATHA IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF 2 ACRES AT SY NO.52/P1 OF KANGONAHALLI VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus to respondents to transfer khata in favour of petitioners in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.52/P1situated at Kangonahalli village, Melukote Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District, contending interalia that said land came to be granted to him vide Grant Certificate No.117/1994 dated 06.04.1994 (Annexure-A), pursuant to which, petitioner is said to have submitted representation for mutating the revenue records in his favour, based on which, jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner has also intimated fourth respondent herein to take steps. On account of said request or prayer having not been considered by fourth respondent, petitioner is before this Court.
2. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, this court is of the considered view that if a direction is issued to fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.05.2017 (Annexure-B) within a time frame, it would meet the ends of justice.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Next >