PADMAVATI Vs. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared through video conferencing. Sri.Sharanabasappa M.Patil., learned HCGP for respondent No.1 has appeared in person.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are these: It is stated that the second respondent is the daughter of the petitioner and she has filed a suit for partition and separate possession against her mother and others on the file of Civil Judge and CJM, at Raichur, in O.S.No.93/2016 and the same is pending consideration. The said suit was filed on 23/5/2016. As the matter stood thus, the second respondent gave a representation to the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi, making certain allegations against the officials of CMC, Raichur, that they have failed to look into her objections with respect to the mutation of the properties that are the subject matter of the suit. It is said that the representation is given to take action against the officials. After receipt of the representation, the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi treated the same as a revision one under Sec. 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and stayed the mutations of the properties that are the subject matter of the suit without even hearing the petitioner. Under these circumstances, petitioner having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.