Karnataka High Court
M. K. Manohar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44583
WP NO.21033 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.21033 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
M.K. MANOHAR
S/O KRISHNAPPA @ AGUDURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.136,
MULLUR VILLAGE,
KARMELLARAM POST,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU -560 035.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RASHMI SAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAGHU PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Digitally signed by VIKASA SOUDHA,
ARUN KUMAR M S
Location: High VIDHANA VEEDHI,
Court of Karnataka
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 101.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44583
WP NO.21033 OF 2023
4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
NADAKACHERI,
MASTI HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK - 563 130.
5. REVENUE INSPECTOR
NADA KACHERI,
MASTI HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK - 563 101.
6. H.K. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. LATE KENCHAPPA
DINNERI HORAHALLI VILLAGE,
MASTI HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK - 563 130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18TH FEBRUARY, 2022 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN
R.A.706(A)/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ORDER DATED
28TH FEBRUARY, 2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT IN R.A.P.
NO.103/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government
Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 to 5.
NC: 2023:KHC:44583
WP NO.21033 OF 2023
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order
dated 18th February, 2022 (Annexure-E) passed by the
respondent No.3 and order dated 28th February, 2023
(Annexure-J) passed by the respondent No.2, rejecting the
application made by the petitioner for incorporating the name
of the petitioner in the Mutation Register in respect of the
subject land.
3. Heard Smt. Rashmi Sagar, learned counsel on behalf of
Sri. Raghu Prasad B.S., appearing for the petitioner and Sri.
Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondents 1 to 5.
4. It is the claim made by the petitioner that the
petitioner is owner in possession of subject land and
accordingly, sought for entering the name of the petitioner in
the Mutation Register. However, the finding recorded by the
respondents 2 and 3 in the impugned orders would indicate
that, Original Suit No.245 of 2013 and Original Suit No.98 of
2014 are pending consideration between the petitioner as well
as the respondent No.6 before the competent Civil Court and
NC: 2023:KHC:44583
WP NO.21033 OF 2023
rights of the parties to be crystalised in the aforementioned
suits.
5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in
the writ petition as the parties to the writ petition are abide by
the judgment and decree that may be made by the competent
Civil Court in the aforementioned suits. With this observation,
writ petition stands disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
ARK
