SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Kar) 885

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
KOTESHAPPA – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Vinayak S. Kulkarni, N.P. Vivekmehta, Prashant Mathapathi, N.R. Kuppellur.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant Chandangoudar, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Commissioner disposing of the revision petition filed by respondent No. 4 herein under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), wherein the operation of the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner has been stayed till the disposal of the suit filed by respondents No. 5 to 7.

2. Petitioner purchased lands bearing Sy.No. 138/1A+1B+2Bx3 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas and Sy.No. 139/2 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas both situated at Karur village of Ranebennur Taluk through a registered sale deed dtd. 16/12/2005 from respondent No. 4. The Tahsildar on 10/8/2006, mutated the name of the petitioner vide M.E. No. 100 as contemplated under Sec. 129 of the Act. The mutation entry in favour of the petitioner was questioned by respondents No. 4 to 7 herein before the Assistant Commissioner under Sec. 136(2) of the Act. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 4 herein filed revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Act. The Deputy Commis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top