i IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THES THE 26 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3 1009/2000 _ BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPAN1§§rS;.:"'*A.. BEIWEEN: 1 SR1. OMAR FAROOK, S/O A1SHA.KOOR " ' ' AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS " " R/A NO. 315, 8TH CROSS ._ A , LAKSHMI ROAD, SHAm"_H~1NAGAR__ BANGALORE -- 560 027 ' SMT. NASIMA FAROOK W] O .O1\/IAR FAROOK AGED ABOUT 39" ; " R/A NO. 31:5, STH CROSS A . _ LAKSHMI_'E?.OAD;,' "SHANTI9*II.NAG.AR_ PETITIONERS KEY ADV.) STATE OF .,13Y M "CHIEF SECRETARY -- VID1*'1A\IA..SOUDHA ~ D1-.."_B.R;. AMBEDKAR ROAD EANG.ALOEE -- 560 001 " SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NOR TALUK (ADD), ,.. -. 2 YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. R KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
8: 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A…PR,AY_ER
TO: QUASH THE IMPUONED ENDORESEMENT
19.8.2009 ON THE FILE OF THE R2 VIDE .13-I.RET;_’T _
TI-IE R2 To EEEECT MUTATION IN THE NAME-QF ‘THE =
PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF’ SY. N0;–»8″f.OE?._ EAST;-. ‘
KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA”-j HCIEL1,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK M’EAsI.IRI.Nc; ‘ACRES
GUNTAS. ” = –. .
THIS WRIT PETITION CQMING ON EON ‘~PRIEI;IMI’NARY’I I
HEARING. THIS DAY, THE COURT ~TIfIE ‘FOLLOWING:
0RpER;I
Sri R.Kumar, Advocate to
accept notice’ 2 and file memo
of ap1I5’ea1*anee’IvIi’i1:1IiIT }1ATpe;~Iod of four weeks from today.
V. 2. ‘I’he_”peti–tionef’ before this Court seeking for
I issI.,{e {of writ ofeertiorari to quash the endorsement
éiated which is impugned at Annexure E and
a}:-:.o for further mandamus to direct the second
I
1′.’
3
respondent to effect mutation in the name of the
petitioner in respect of Sy.No.8 measuring 7 acres 20
guntas situate at Gasti Kempanahalii village, Yelahanka
Hobli, Bangalore North Taiuk.
3. The case of the petitioners« i
purchased the property measuring “‘7,_acresV_2.O *gunt.4a’s,in,
Sy.No.8 as described abovetfroizm Sri Srinivais avndttothers V
under a registered Pursuant
to such purchase, the i_gé.;1tit1ed to have
the mutation4’o;jEd’er gchanging::th’e=..re§§renue entries and
therefore’ £r;:.+,gei:::o1{:e:s had approached the second
respondent The second respondent
instead. or the change, has issued the
Lztvidorsement dated 19.8.2009. The reason
is that the change cannot be effected
since the”extent of the property is not indicated in the
“revenue records against the name of the vendor of the
i
“5′
petitioner. Though the endorsement has been in
respect of Sy.Nos. 7 and 8, since the prayer is in
respect of Sy.No.8 aione, the case of the peti.t.io-n_er._ is
considered in that regard.
4. The learned Goverrzrnent V’
however seek to justify the
even though the extent oi’-.t:_he_Vpropertygitsgindicated inn’
the sale deed, to effect the irevenne eAntries–,’E revenue
records should also therefore the
second respondent u§:as.ji1″s:tifiedg-.._ ‘ ‘
-. what has been contended, a
perusal the ‘deejd_.=Wou1d no doubt indicate that an
‘of 7x’ “acres_20 guntas in Sy.No.8 has been
‘ ;purch.ased.:Vb’y,_ the petitioners. The sketch has also been
has-p}er’Annexure~D indicating the extent of the
Though the endorsement states that the
1
‘I0
5
extent of the property has not been indicated against
the name of vendor in the revenue records, a perusal of
the entries made in the RTC in respect of Sy.Nov.V8e’.rVh_ich
is at Annexure–F, would indicate that the toi;a1′ _
the property is 27 acres 18 guntas as
portions are owned by the different;_-perso’ns-as
indicated in CoI.No.9. A-3: ‘against._ the na’n’i.¢..QfflS3ri
Srinivas, R. Gopalaltrishtnat — .. i§.Ash*eIathanarayana
an extent of 7 acre/S ‘4i’st’V’:indicated as having
mutated Vide tie: No at the outset,
the reason thtefvpvendorsement does not
appear to heeorrect. ‘«.vEv_en otherwise, While considering
the representtafiotn’ _ ‘o~§pt”‘the petitioner, the second
respondent.’ bound to verify the records with
thfi total extent in the survey number and
that as against the extents indicated
againsvti the other owners, the extent as claimed by the
petitiovners if found to be overlapping, the question of
J
4.
6
considering the same would have arisen in the presence
of other persons. Even the said procedure has not been
adapted by the second respondent. In any everit}ifsii’:.Ce
Ar1nexure~«F discloses that the extent of
been indicated in the RTC, the second ijespoii:dent4.’_sha»1l’it
notice the same and thereafter a’act–._in accordallce-.:”with_
law.
. 6. Therefore, at the outset;– the enddoisement dated
19.08.2009 insofar’ ‘A as” of Gasti
Kempanaha_l}.i*Vi1iage{ isjnot -stistainaiiie. The same is
accoritiingijd/it ‘d’dq;V1ashed..;Vd”‘*.___ The second respondent is
directed co’n’sid’er tiliefredpresentation of the petitioner
byépsatisfying” with reference to the sketch and
the observed above. In order to hasten the
H ~pr0_ces’s;”_*the’petitioner is permitted to furnish one more
of along with the certified copy of this order
., “it0t-thevdsecond respondent Within a period of four weeks
i
‘3
7
from today. Thereafter, the second respondent shali
act in accordance with law and complete the entire
process within an outer period of three months
thereafter.
In terms of the above, the petition stands’
of with no order as to costs.