VINODA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the order dtd. 25/3/2014 bearing [xxxxxx] (Annexure-A) by which the first respondent cancelled the mutation which was in favour of the petitioner and directed to enter the name of the original owner in respect of property bearing No.25/26 measuring 30 X 40 feet situated at Mullur Village, Hunasur Taluk, Mysuru District.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri.B.J.Somayaji for respondent Nos.1 and 3 through video conference and learned counsel Sri.Punith.C., for Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda would submit that the property in question bearing No.25/26 situated at Mullur Village was standing in the name of Sri.Devaraj Kadam. On his death, since he had no Class-I legal heirs, katha was transferred in the name of respondent No.5, brother of said Sri.Devaraj Kadam. The petitioner purchased the property in question from the fifth respondent Sri.Devaraj Kadam under registered sale deed dtd. 21/8/2006 (Annexure-D). On purchase, based on the conveyance deed, the name of the petitioner was entered in respect of property in question under mutation proceedings at Annexure-F dtd. 21/2/2007. It is submitted that the fourth respondent claiming to be daughter of Sri.Devaraj Kadam, got issued legal notice dtd. 18/3/2008 to the Secretary, Mullur Grama Panchayath requesting to cancel the katha standing in the name of the petitioner and to enter her name. Thereafter, fourth respondent filed appeal before the first respondent under Sec. 269 of The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 1993 Act).