High Court Karnataka High Court

Shiva Naik Patil vs Smt Sabakka @ Tangevva on 21 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shiva Naik Patil vs Smt Sabakka @ Tangevva on 21 October, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
In In HIGH comm' or  _

cnzcurr amen AT  A [   

Datfid th.iS 'I13 2 15':   j§ -- 
Br:F0RE     A          
THE Horrnu: nanA.ms1$1c:ws%:T V.  Kama:
Writ Petu2:o' ' ;#q3og;3;2 éfsotxggkemcpci

BETWEN: 
SHIVA NA1K..P1_i$1"1L.j  " 
S/O"!f»W»14A NAIK 4  '
QCC A::;;R1I;.,__ _ "
[R/0'H.ofs{JR if ' 
'-,TQ._SAUN"§}ATF! *   .
n1s"zf_ BVELGAV'U.M'~_  ' _  PETITDNER'

'   kkk(;3y%JsriLH M 1)ha:ri@nd, Adv)

    %%%%% 

'  "  'vs'M'r'sABAKxA@TANGEWA

' xwzo smiaa NAIK PATIL
AGE 47{:=YEARs
Gcc ji-i(}USEHOLD WORK
R/(3 TADASALOOR

*~ VTQ SAUNDATTI
BELGAUM ms?

"   sm GOPAVVA

W/O SHESHA NAJK PATEL
AGE 39 YEARS

OCC HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O TADASALOOR

'I'Q SAUNDATTI

DIST BELGAUM



3 SHANMUKAPPA SIDDANAGOUDER

S/O BASAPPA

AGE'. 68 YEARS

occ AGRIL

R/0 HOSUR

TQ SAUNDATTI

{DIST BELGAUM   o

4 THE TAHASILDAR
SAUNDATFI
'I'QSAUNDA'I'I'I V      .3
ms? BELGAUM    '.;..1zE_,smNDEms

(By Sri K,-B. Aciy.=;ifl--I9i1f}_G~P' 'fo;~oR~«i)

TI-RS WRIT PE'§'ITI'f-Nfii -IS'-§'IL,E:D UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF' THE
CQHSTTTUYITON OF ENDEA, "VPRAYI_MGv..:TO_'_. DERECT THE 475
RESPONDENT TO. CONSEBWQ'Ti-iE_fi:dPI,I€3£i.'1'I'€)'i\I OF' THE PETITIONER

VIBE} AN’NEXUR.€;¢IIi AND

_’oN FOR P:Rm.nvm\IARY IEARING ms
DAY, T§3.’EuCOUR’I? FOLLOWBJG:

“ormnn

‘V ‘A a Without any rhyme or reason by a person,

A has suffcrm an ex patte decree and who is

agfipmhonofive that even during the pendency of the final

1orocoedi11gs, the decree holder, taking advantage of

‘ ”’v.fiie’Aju<igmcnt, has applied to the thasildar to change the

d V' "revenue records to the exclusive name of the decree holder

—- third respondent herein – and is also apprehexusivc that

notwithstanding the petitioner has
representations to the tahsildalf, the’
into consideration or may overlook ~ ”

and therefore has issue
of a writ of mandamus to” tahsildar
not to enter the of in the revenue
records 3 ‘Jdeeree proceedings
before Vneeiwebioner has also sought
for a sale deed executed by
responglerotsv of third respondent as 11111}

and voi£ie,~–._ as version of the petitioner that the

v have executed such sale deed even

of the final decree proceedings.

on behalf of the petitioner, Sri R 13 Desai,

counsel, would urge the above gonads to seek for

no prayers made in the writ petition. Submission is that

‘ even though the petitioner is aggieved by the ex parte-

deeree and when the petitioner has initiated proceedings to

get over this and even during the pendcn¢y.:_ 0f such

proceedings, the tahsildar C&I}1{}- ot make the faxjtijies

which can affect the rights of _

the writ as prayed for should wua-id. : k

3. The writ petition is “of and ‘the
fear of the petitioner’ fi>iic’v«q1:éstior1ing any
administrative acfiofi action, warrantillg
review by M% V’ x

4. In for issue of a Writ of
the objection before the tahsildar
in a at the instance of the thllid

‘tic-cs not become an inaction for examination of

»’ i:h_i$ issuing a writ of mandamus. It is open to the

ii:5″V..pursue the matter before the tahsildar or

court.

E.’

A’ J; Vvwithout prejudice to such possibiiitics, this writ:

” jiéiition is dismissed.

Sd/-}

mjk Iudgé