A. JAYAKUMARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court grieving that, (i) 11E Sketch granted in respect of Sy. No.40/5B which has been made time-bound, is impermissible; and, (ii) no 11E Sketch has been issued in respect of two other lands i.e., Sy.No.38/2 & Sy.No.37/2P3 of Kepu Village of Bantwala Taluk despite online application being made.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that though online applications in respect of all the three lands seeking grant of 11E Sketch is made, the application is considered only in respect of one land and even that Revenue Sketch has been made time bound. He adds, in respect of two more lands, the Sketch ought to have been issued in the light of compromise decree obtained by his clients in O.S.No.38/2022.

(3.) Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents makes submission resisting the Writ Petition contending that the Revenue Sketch granted in respect of one of the lands is justifiably time bound and that in respect of the two other lands, if the Petitioner makes an online application, there would be no difficulty for considering the same swiftly in accordance with law. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.