Smt. C Suma vs The Commissioner on 9 November, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS-THE 09"?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HO|\i'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERIE;   

wRIT PETITION NO. 14351 OF 2010 (LB~BMPj--._:  

BETWEEN:

SMT. C SUMA

W/O SRI NARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

R/A No. 654, ST" MAIN ROAD

VIEAYANAGAR ..  _    
BANGALORE - 560 040     , I  PETITIONER

(BY SRI K M PRARASH 

AND:

1. THE CO.M'MIS'S'IONER?" _  .
BANGALORE NAHA.NAGA_RA_PA~I..II<E
BANGALORE. «    

2. THE ASSISTANT 'REVENUE OEEICER
K G H,ALLI.CIRCLE_ '
 - ._ BAN_GALO_RE ,MAHANAG..A.RA PALIKE

BANGALORE _'   RESPONDENTS

. V’ – N PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS”‘wRIT.’PIE;TITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

“,;OE THE ‘CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
_ E_N4DO.RSEMEN.T DATED 04.07.2006 ISSUED BY THE R2 PRODUCED AT

‘ “ANNEx’~E AND ETC.

. WRIT PETITION COMING ON EOR PRLY. HG IN ‘B’ GROUP
‘T_HIS;_–DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Ix)

QRDER

The petitioner has called into question,

respondent’s endorsement, dated 04.07.2006_..(2§’ri~~nVe}ture-F)V,”‘

refusing to transfer the khatha in resp,eot:,ofjj,t’he

question to the petitioner’s name on account of the,V.p’-endeéncyj of .

O.S.l\|0.1551/20O4.

2. Sri Prakash, the lelarnedig,;;dliseiVl’,’:’fo:r’»» the petitioner
submits that the petitionej_r isgnot pVa’rt:y._i’ri.VOl:lS;’hlo.1551/2004.

He further submits_:_:p,etl.tio::’er’:s ‘property is not the

subject matterof_th’e.,s’uil:.;:at’al.l;’

3. Sri K’.-N.P.utte learned counsel for the
re5P0ndentsq.5lJbmii-5,_’tha,t,= it’*_ls””‘not advisable for the B.B.M.P
offi_c”ial.5_ tov.’:,d’et-.g;:mi.,ne th’e”‘c;’uestion of title and more so, when

the

_4. The irtlpuvgned endorsement is not reflective of the

mifnd. It does not even say as to whether the

ifl’5.,”_p,etit’i_oner’s”property and the suit property are the one and the

‘*’-There is absolutely no examination of the petitioner’s

RB}!

ciaim and the tenabiiity of the objections by Sri Manjunatha–and

Smt Papamma.

5. I therefore quash the same with a

respondent No.2 to hear both the petitioinereaopiicant4fo’r.._th.gE

transfer of khatha and Sri Manjunath aVrz.d.””‘Smt
objectors thereto, consider their and
thereafter take a decision in rxiith law.
This exercise shalt be AcompieAted’A.within:L from the

date of the production ‘oAf;:;t:he c_o;:)iy:–Vofv–torday’s order.

6. This _p.etit_ion_V”i’s;»’1a;cco:*d’incjiyéid-i–s.posed of. No order as to
costs. ‘ V i A

Sé/–

EUDGE