MAXIM SEQUEIRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned endorsement dated 25/28/7/2022 issued by the respondent No.4 - Tahasildar, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, who has called upon the petitioners to furnish 11E sketch for consideration of their application for mutation entry in terms of the decree passed by the Civil Court / Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada in O.S. No.256/2021. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no need for the petitioners to furnish 11E sketch.

(3.) However, the learned Additional Government Advocate has pointed to a decision of this Court in the case of Kum. Jyothi and another v. State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.1523/2022 dtd. 26/7/2022 wherein this Court noticed an earlier decision of this Court in W.P. No.102325/2022 dtd. 6/7/2022 which was decided at the Dharwad Bench and wherein it was held hat there is a need for production of 11E sketch prepared at the hands of the licenced surveyor. For easy reference, the order passed in W.P. No.102325/2022 is extracted as hereunder: