..1..
m THE HIGH COURT or KAZRNATAKA, "
DATED THIS THE 2431 DAY OF 1
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT:<::.E.f RAM. A
WRIT PETI'I'ION No. :2_()Oé§"{L.1'j'3..f'§fE3S}v§
BETWEEN: AV 'A ' H N
JOCKY SURESH
S,iO.THAMMAIAi€£' . _ -
AGE:34
R/AT DOOR 1§_g,--:fi_1sf_1, " ' _
PARISAR£\.NA{}A~RA,i:::,\ ~
PERIYAFATNA 'i"AE.;UKi, , ._
MYSORE1..DZS'I'R3C'¥?.':"'-~_ ' '
- ~ g " PETITIONER
(BY M/3, 1-3 M"'KR_:SHimBHA*r, ADV)
A. H .....
'"1 ' s'rA?§3' f5'F.:IA'r:§:r,.y :_3;.'a:f;3._fi'y THE
FOLLOWING: .'
% «g;gDEEi§'%'-A
The petitionefs véficiofg of the
immovabie prop:§:I'tj;z':- 10 x
7.30 mtfs, 51:1 ---tcsxirn, Periyapama tamk,
Mysore Distfigt; Céfiveysd the property under 3
.:5f,a}e '.14-,4,_':_2_Q()7, mack: an application dt.
2£}O7,_V4I'er'z:§1*1a:3ge of Katha, 1:0 the Town Panchayat,
V' on 7.7.2007 the petitioner made
'anothef a§;.§1iCx3.tion t0 the 3"! rézspendent-Chief Gfficer,
LPancha§;at fer change of katha, in response to
a notice cit. 16.6.2007 Armexure-1'-' was issued to
V' 'me. petitioner calling upon him to fumish pariicuiars of
the property, which when not complied with, was
-3-
foliowed by a reminder dt. 5.9.2007
addressing a copy be the pe¥:iti0:1e1"s vendor: In :~;e..'1:€le'x
notice, it is stated that the 235 :'Feepend£:nt¢«§ej§L_1f:y5?
Commissioner passed an order on Ch€"!f€:[3'(:€S€I1t€;_i_TiOI1 V'
public directing the SW1 respondeifi.tT"'*to hve'i'd a33e S
into the allegation that «_ prrjfiertféjé iii'-.qt1esfi6n"'V§vas
eublic property. The 'nefiice dt.
22.4.2008 A1mex:;1re=T;§1'Wh$1e of the sale
deed and $10.8 cit. 24.5.2007,
reiterated bequest of katha. The Qfld
respondem by 01;'<ierV_'d"f. 1'3=.5:QOO8, mmexure-L, rejected
of petitioner, Hence this writ petition.
is opposed by filing statemem of
.:%_j.j'_;':.Q}$jecti0ns~~ 3.7.4.2009 of the 2nd respondent inter alia
eeiiiezfiifgeg at para 5 thus:
‘ __’?’Hewever, this respondent is not abie to trace
any such katha in its records.” :3
..«’/
-4-
In addition, it is cemtended that the pubiic
Periyapatna having made a Writeten requisition tog’
am respondent stating that the petitioner had is
fraild by creating documents, the kefilaa. ‘s}1«fJ13i_§i
Changed into the name of the petitioiiefi’-.ee’pieS’
were fonvarcied to the GoVefiL*n§ent
Commissioner. It is V §t,ate£I”” the ‘”‘~Defp:1’E.y
Commissioner had called . 1g=eep:0nde:1t to
hold an report in respect of the
property iI1A’q}_.1estiem_éeij’–fiie._e:iegation of the public that
it bekmgg,’ tr; the Gevemfiiiefit, leading to the netice dt.
egurefie {Annexure–G to the Writ
Pe£iti_0§1_)..TA “‘v’F’h§:I*éiE;f;i1″iier, notice through post when
V Végddzwessed :0’ pe’t.itio:1er’s vendor to appear before the
reespozident, was returned unsewed with pasta}
e§1d’£:x15Se1AI’1e2f1t “address not correct”. it is lastly
T -jeeiitendeci that the documents avaiiabie with the 3″‘
4 <. uresp01";der1t when (tampered with the sale deed of the
pet.it.i=:n'1er, did not tail}; and therefore, the: 3&1
E!
~./ "
..5..
respondent had eailed upon the petitioner ~
reievant <;ioeo.mem:s..
3. in response to the direetionof. t11iS_eo1.1rt; big’
order dated 20.04.09, the 1ea1eiieVeI’eo1:1ise1’A”‘fof Mord
respondent makirzg ref’e§’eneef_’A i:–oVA of
buildings and lands liableinto the years
1997-98 to 2oo:§er:;,V property in
question, poiléts submits that the
entries tile petifionefis vendor as
kathedar ” t;1s;t_ .:i13I;{)p€I’f3f in question was
4..afssesse.£§’ uto~ tax. ‘ieanled counsel hastens to add that
‘taxesfor 1V?’«__haVe not been paid by the petit:ion.er’s
ve11ri–o:*;—.~’ V
‘Iii: light of the entries in the register, the
‘ ‘séateziiegt extracted supra from the statement ef
ob3°eLjtiei1s is incorrect. The register diseioses the name
‘ A pe?;it1’oz1er’s vendor as the kathedar and therefore,
there was no justification for the SN respondent to holgi
{£5
Skit :
xi K
-6-
that there did not exist a katha in the name of
in its register, for the years 1997»~98 ani%za:uis,’«;:1.;1»e§’1;s:¢:V
of the immovable property in questioI1.h’~._A
5. it may be that ‘the
directed the 3rd over the
ailegations of the question
belongs to the efibcting of a
chafige 11:} Vflof the petitioI1er’s
vendor to V in the register
..by ..:;53’§<1'Vt*tesA1.'3r3s:téié:ent, is not a fetter on the
pf to hold an enqu1'ry as
direfctéitfljy Commissioner, as they are two
' V . __ n"'in{1epen(}a:3ntV__ j3}'t}c.§f:edingS.
the circumstances, the order dt. 13.5.2008
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
'I1. vsfer of Katha of the property in question being
arbitrary and pervfirse is unsusfamabie. K
7. in the resuit, this petifien is allowed _
The order impugned Am1eXure–L quasi’1ecQ:a:i(i.. 3;’
mandamus shall ensue to the V’-.,3r¢_fzesgficsxifieizteteé
consider the yetitiolzerfi appliC:ét.i@;1 for”t1″a1″1si’e:é_ <j%£}{a.1;h::i
and pass; Qrders thereon,__ in even}; Wit'hi«:1_a pefiod
of' four weeks :i1'oII14_f!i(__1ay.i”W