IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHA'1'A.KA AT
DATED mus 'rim sm DAY or AUGUST, %
?RESENT
THE HOWBLE am. 19.13». Dlmxmm, A "
AND A
rm: HOIPBLE nm..rus*i'1 ¢:§:% v.6.
WRIT APPEAL my. 18g£.~3*,"V:.'.3_:i1Ofl__{.LB-tl'Is@v
Between:
S1111: H.La}<shmi 33; L;
W/o late '
Aged abougsajyears
Residing at..N0..B~\-44.'j-.. * ' -
Pmpcfiy No.67,'-Ward 1~§§:.%3e,¢_"'
P.V.R.R<)ad, " _ r
BANGALQRE~56G 953;
A ' Sri Amémsh A Angadi, Advocate}
And: ..
1. BA2§céAL{51§§: MAHANAGARA PALIKE
" By its._CommiSsioner
'NR.
% % '--.jf3'AN;(}AL(Z1RE~56O 002.
i'Ia¢'R5%ienue Oificer 4
GALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKIS
_ f 'iéhickpet Raflge
"BANGALORE-560 053. ...Rc-:spondents
(By Sri MN Ramanjaneya Gowcia, Advocate for Rland R2)
Writ Appeal filed under Section 4 of the
Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed ..1;he [Writ
Petition No.8998/2008 dated 14.7.2008. V
This writ Appeal coming up for pI'f:1iII1iII«':lIj"i"':.:}::1t'.i&3lI'1E1:VA_ -" V'
day, the Court delivered the following; _
Juneuneede
(Delivered by PD. " ararl,' V
On the ground that was in
occupation of the and
property bearing C:%id%i\Ee.3'1,:::VP5VT£.~Réead, Ward No.30,
iiiangalore, ""'vt.i1e petitioner made a
representaifiien' 'before the respondents to
substitute hegimamg, of her father-in–1aw in the
yeeerdsiooéar Bgingaisre Mahanagara Palike (amp). The
the name of the petitioner in the records
of ate occupant. Being aggrieved by the entxy
-as *’t;enant’ the revenue records instead of ‘owner’, the
has approached this court for issue of a. writ of
. i7eeif£ie_faz*i to quash the endersements dated 28.1.2006 and
’25~,4.2006 issued by the respondents, and also sought for
s'”‘_”‘gV
consequential relief to direct the IBM? to enter hertjiiefizie’
the khatha regeter as the owner.
2. The learned single Judge, by his. one emit 144»
July, 2008 dismissed the .w:__’_it fietiiion,
consideration pendency of the ‘tiiev’jpei:t;itione;’ in
o.s. No.84:22 of 1999 Court, Bangaiore
for declaration of title to i)roperty, based
on her rights ileemed single Judge
further petitioner’s name in
the khatha regster of:”1;he. by itseif
would not confer any Jipetitioner. Hence,
this writ appeal.
3. We do hot in the observation of the
1ea1nediv.e.ii1g1e Judge. iessuming that the petitioner’s
{iiajillfi is eritered» the vlgiiatha register as 9. tenant/occupant,
” fflot confer any. right and the same will
out by the petitioner in the pending suit
“i999 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore.
5” E M}
5
MM
4. We are convinced that the first resmncienté’
committed an error in entering the name of the
tenant, Without there being proper;
basis. We make it clear that theeaid will Tr’:£;t’A.eohfe19 = e
right on the appellant to claim of the
impugned premises. liberty to
agitate this claim also in is disposed of
accordingly.
Justice
Sd/*
JUDGE
Web’ -He-st: – . .