The State Of Karnataka vs B Krishna Bhat
2023 Latest Caselaw 1709 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                         WA No.1386 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2023
                                             PRESENT
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                                  AND
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                             WRIT APPEAL NO.1386 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by RUPA V               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: High          TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Court of                M S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
Karnataka               BENGALURU - 01.

                   2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                        D K DISTRICT, MANGALURU - 575 001.

                   3.   THE THASILDAR
                        BANTWAL TALUK
                        D K DISTRICT - 574 211.

                                                               ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA)
                   AND:

                   1.   B. KRISHNA BHAT
                        S/O PADMANABHA BHAT
                        AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
                        R/AT KEDILA VILLAGE
                        BANTWAL TALUK
                        D K DISTRICT - 574 211.

                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADV.,)
                            -2-
                                      WA No.1386 of 2021




     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
DATED 18.11.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO 42190/2012
(KLR-RES).

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against

order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Single

Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the

respondent has been disposed of.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that a Committee for grant of lands to

unauthorized occupants of Bantwal Taluk, passed a

resolution on 20.03.2004 to grant 0.57 acre of land in

Sy.No.88/1C, 0.54 acre in Sy.No..234/1p and 0.11 acre

in Sy.No.235/1p of Kedila Village, Bantwal Taluk,

D.K.District in favouf o the respondent who expired on

05.01.2012. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a

representation on 25.06.2012 requesting to issue

WA No.1386 of 2021

saguvali chit in favour of deceased brother. The Deputy

Commissioner, by a communication dated 09.08.2012,

rejected the request of the respondent. The respondent

thereupon filed a writ petition seeking quashment of the

order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner as well as a direction to the Tahsildar,

Bantwal to issue saguvali chit to the respondent. The

learned Single Judge, by an order dated 18.11.2019,

has disposed of the petition. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate fairly

submitted that in compliance of the order passed by the

learned Single Judge, a saguvali chit has been issued in

favour of the temple.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties at length. From the facts, it is evident that the

deceased had bequeathed the land in question in favour

of the temple by a registered will. The learned Single

WA No.1386 of 2021

Judge therefore has rightly quashed the endorsement

dated 09.08.2012. Subsequent to the direction issued

by the learned Single Judge, saguvali chit has already

been issued in favour of the temple in question.

For the aforementioned reasons, at this point of

time, we do not find any ground to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Consequently, pending interlocutory applications

are also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV