Sri Siddalingaiah vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3429 Kant

                            1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

   WRIT PETITION NO.51517 OF 2016(LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH,
S/O MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O MADAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.B CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
   DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ,
   M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
   BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
   TALUK PANCHAYATH,
   TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
   TUMAKURU - 572 126.

3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
   BELLAVI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
   TUMKUR TALUQ,
   TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 138.

4. THE SECRETARY,
   BELLAVI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
   TUMKUR TALUQ,
   TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 138.

5. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA ALIAS ASHA,
   W/O HANUMANTHARAJU,
   AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                                2

   R/O N R COLONY,
   TUMAKURU - 572 126.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 -R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.7.2016 PASSED IN APPEAL
NO.02/2013-14 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH, TUMKUR VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                            ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to no-

restoration of entries in the Property Register in respect of

the subject property in his favour.

2. After service of notice, the first respondent

represented by learned AGA and the private respondents

having entered appearance through their counsel, make

submission in justification of the action of the answering

respondents.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined

to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as:

a) The entries in favour of the petitioner concerning the

subject properties were made pursuant to a registered Sale

Deed dated 19.03.2001 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A;

thereafter, the suit of the private respondent in

O.S.No.143/2010 was decreed ex parte the petitioner on

24.08.2012; consequent to this decree the entries standing in

the name of the petitioner came to be deleted from the

Property Register and Decree Holder's name came to be

entered in is stead.

b) The decree having been put in challenge in R.A.

No.39/2013 and the learned Principal Civil Judge, Tumkur,

having allowed the said appeal has set aside the judgment &

decree and remanded the matter for consideration afresh; the

said suit is stated to have been still pending; that being the

position, the name of the petitioner ought to have been

restored to the Property Register; no reason or rhyme for not

restoring the name of the petitioner in the Property Records,

of course, subject to outcome of the suit in question.

c) Although this is a fit case for imposition of cost on

the second respondent, the Executive Officer of Taluka

Panchayath this Court very reluctantly is refraining from

levying the same; however, with a warning that if such

mistakes do recur exemplary costs may be levied and an

adverse entry may be recorded in his Service Register.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds;

a Writ of Mandamus issues to the second respondent to

restore name of the petitioner in the Property Records as

before within a period of 15 days from the date a copy of this

Judgment is handed to him and report compliance to the

Registrar General of this Court failing which for each day of

delay, the second respondent shall personally pay Rs.2,000/-

to the petitioner.

Now, no costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv