Sri G Ananthakumar vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Feb 27, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1658788

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1658788
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: N S Sanjay Gowda
Decided On: Feb 27, 2025
Case Number: WP/3544/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sri G Ananthakumar

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....petitioner.4. it is submitted that the property bearing panchayat khata no.391/493/233 was allotted to his father and his father had in turn executed a registered gift deed in his favour on 18.11.2021.5. it is his further case that the tmc had in factrecognized the property owned by his father by registering the khata in his favour and assigned the khata no.311/493/233. it is contended that since the title of his father had been recognized by the tmc itself, the tmc cannot now be permitted to contend that there is a mistake in the khata number and it should be relatable to no.391/421/223.6. a perusal of annexure ‘e’, which is an extract of theproperty register, would indicate that the property bearing no.311/493/233 was in fact registered in -4- the name of the petitioner’s father. it is therefore clear that the title that the petitioner’s father had over the aforementioned property was recognized by the tmc. the moment the father of the petitioner executed a gift deed, it is obvious that the khata of the said property would have to be transferred in the petitioner’s name.7. however, the tmc contends that the property bearing no.311/493/233 has been assigned to some other person’s property and therefore, the impugned endorsement was issued.8. if the property was already assigned to petitioner’s father, the assignment of the very same number to some other person’s property would be improper.9. it would therefore be appropriate to direct the tmcto issue a notice to the person to whom the property bearing no.311/493/233 is assigned and inform him about the mistake and also the fact that the said property number had been registered in the -5- name of the petitioner’s father and it would therefore have to be transferred in favour of the petitioner on the basis registered gift deed.10. the tmc shall hear the person in whose name the property has been assigned and proceed to pass theorder on the basis of the registered gift deedaccordingly.11. the.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 3544 OF 2023 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI G ANANTHAKUMAR
S/O GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NEAR VENU GOPA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, IGGALURU VILLAGE CHANDAPURA POST , ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE- 560099 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by VIDHANA SOUDHA / VIKASA SOUDHA KIRAN AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001 KUMAR R Location: HIGH 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD BANGALORE - 560009

3. THE CHIEF OFFICER

CHANDAPURA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560099 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. KEMPANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3) -2- THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:25.05.2022 IN CASE NO.PU.KHA.CHAM/KHMA-SHA/C.R/350/2022/23 ISSUED BY

THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS WELL AS THE ORDER

DATED.24.11.2022 IN CASE IN CASE NO.JINIKO/C(3)/ITHARE/CR/107/2022.23 PASSED/ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND TO ENTER/CONTINUE HIS NAME IN THE KHATHA AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS/REGISTERS IN RESPECT OF THE SITE NO.233, OLD SITE NO.493, KHATHA NO.391/493/233, OLD JANJARU NO.311 (PROPERTY NO.493/233), PANCHAYATH KHATHA NO.150200100600300405(311/493/233),MEASURING 50X40 FT.SITUATED AT IGGALUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, NOW COMING UNDER LIMITS OF CHANDAPURA PURASABHE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 24.11.2022 by which the Town Municipal Council, Chandapura, (for short, ‘the TMC’) called upon him to get the property number rectified.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father had purchased the property from Smt.Sunanda by a registered sale deed on 08.06.1998. -3-

3. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a partition between his father and his brothers and thereafter, his father proceeded to execute a gift deed in respect of the petitioner.

4. It is submitted that the property bearing Panchayat Khata No.391/493/233 was allotted to his father and his father had in turn executed a registered gift deed in his favour on 18.11.2021.

5. It is his further case that the TMC had in fact

recognized the property owned by his father by registering the Khata in his favour and assigned the Khata No.311/493/233. It is contended that since the title of his father had been recognized by the TMC itself, the TMC cannot now be permitted to contend that there is a mistake in the khata number and it should be relatable to No.391/421/223.

6. A perusal of Annexure ‘E’, which is an extract of the

property register, would indicate that the property bearing No.311/493/233 was in fact registered in -4- the name of the petitioner’s father. It is therefore clear that the title that the petitioner’s father had over the aforementioned property was recognized by the TMC. The moment the father of the petitioner executed a gift deed, it is obvious that the Khata of the said property would have to be transferred in the petitioner’s name.

7. However, the TMC contends that the property bearing No.311/493/233 has been assigned to some other person’s property and therefore, the impugned endorsement was issued.

8. If the property was already assigned to petitioner’s father, the assignment of the very same number to some other person’s property would be improper.

9. It would therefore be appropriate to direct the TMC

to issue a notice to the person to whom the property bearing No.311/493/233 is assigned and inform him about the mistake and also the fact that the said property number had been registered in the -5- name of the petitioner’s father and it would therefore have to be transferred in favour of the petitioner on the basis registered gift deed.

10. The TMC shall hear the person in whose name the property has been assigned and proceed to pass the

order on the basis of the registered gift deed

accordingly.

11. The said exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2025 Same Parties Sri G Ananthakumar vs State of Karnataka Same Judge N S Sanjay Gowda