Sri. Jabeed vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11717 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         PRESENT

              THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

       WRIT APPEAL NO.2399/2017(KLR-RR-SUR)

BETWEEN:

SRI JABEED
S/O MAHABOOB SAB
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKAMUDDANNA LAYOUT
B.H. ROAD, IN-FRONT OF AYYAPPASWAMY
TEMPLE, GOWRIBIDANUR - 562 101
CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.                 ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI KUMARA, ADV.)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY THE SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     THE TAHSILDAR
       GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
       GOWRIBIDANUR - 562 101
       CHICKABALLAPUR.

3.     VAKIL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
       CORPORATION PRIVATE
       LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE
                                2



      AT NO. 78, KORAMANGALA
      INDUSTRIAL AREA
      JYOTHINIVAS COLLEGE ROAD
      KORAMANGALA
      BENGALURU - 560 095
      REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
      MOHAMMED ALI VAKIL.                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PRATRHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
    SRI B. RAMESH, ADV., FOR R-3)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2017 PASSED
IN W.P.NO.11246/2015 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY DISMISS THE W.P.NO.11246/2015 AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, by

which, the impugned the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by

the Tahsildar has been quashed on the ground that the land

in question is a converted land, and therefore, the Tahsildar

has no jurisdiction to pass an order of mutation.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at

length.

3. Admittedly, the land in question is a converted land.

Therefore, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to pass an order

of mutation.

4. It is stated at the Bar that a civil suit in respect of

the land in question is pending adjudication before the Civil

Court. Needless to state that it will be open to the parties to

raise all such contentions therein.

5. With the aforesaid liberty, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK