Karnataka High Court
Smt Hemavathi vs The Joint Commissioner on 4 July, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.13063 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O. LATE K.S MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT NO.55
YELUMANDAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
H.A FARM POST, HEBBALA KEMPAPURA,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU -560 024.
2. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O. LATE K.S NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.50,
YELUMANDAMMA TEMPLE STREET
H.A FARM POST, HEBBALA KEMPAPURA
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU- 560 024.
3. SRI. K.S KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O. LATE. SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.60, 1ST 'B' MAIN ROAD,
VENKATEGOWDA LAYOUT,
H.M.FARM POST, HEBBALA KEMPAPURA,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 024.
4. SRI. K.S RAJANNA
S/O. LATE SANJEEVALPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2
R/AT NO.51, YELUMANDAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
H.A.FARM POST, HEBBALA KEMPAPURA,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 024.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
NO.37, GUNDURU,
VIRGONAGAR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 049.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J.R.MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
YELAHANKA RANGE, BYATARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE- 560 092.
2. THE REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHNAGARA PALIKE,
YELAHANKA RANGE, BYATARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE- 560 092.
3. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHNAGARA PALIKE
KODIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
9TH MAIN ROAD, SHAKARANAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 092.
4. SMT. ANNAPURANAMMA
W/O. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT YELUMANDAMMA TEMPLE STREET
H.A.FARM POST, HEBBALA KEMPAPURA,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 024.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADV FOR R1 TO R3)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE KATHA REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING
NO.VALE/PR/KTR/498/2017-2018, M.R./34/2018-19 DTD
14.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND THE
KATHA CERTIFICATION AND PROPERTY REGISTER BOOK,
ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURES-P1 AND P2 IN THE
NAME OF R4 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY MEASURING
31 FT. X 120 FT. BEARING MUNICIPAL NO.790/13 SITUATED
AT KEMPAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU
NORTH TALUK, COMING UNDER BBMP WARD NO.7, AND THE
ORDER DTD 21.06.2021 BEARING NO.BBMP/JAM.AA.(YAVA)
PR/SAKAMAA/KOHAUUVI/KTR/498/2019-20, PASSED BY THE
R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-T AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the
respondent No.2, in M.R.No.34/2018-19 dated 14.2.2019 and
property register extract issued by respondent No.3, in the
name of respondent No.4, concerning the property bearing
Municipal No.790/13 situated at Kempapura Village, Yelhanka
Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk lying within BBMP Ward No.7.
The petitioners have also challenged the order dated
21.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section
114A of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.
2. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of
the property bearing khaneshumari No.7/1, 7/2, 09, 10/2, 07
and 13 situated at Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. They claim that these properties were
purchased under three different sale deeds dated 24.06.1946,
13.05.1948 and 25.09.1953 by their predecessor in title.
Sri. Sanjeevappa, who died on 17.12.1984, leaving behind the
petitioners who succeeded to the estate. They claimed to
have entered into a partition deed dated 08.04.2019,
consequent to which revenue entries were brought about in
the name of the petitioners. When things stood thus, a
person named Sri. Muddaiah, father of respondent No.4, sold
a residential house to Sri. Gopalappa in terms of a sale deed
dated 18.9.1931. Thereafter the brother of Sri. Muddaiah
named Sri. Appanna sold two portions to the father of the
petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in terms of sale deed dated 24.6.1946.
Later Sri. Muddaiah, sold his half share in ancestral properties
in favour of Sri. Appallappa in terms of sale deed dated
10.10.1950. The petitioners claim that after their
predecessors purchased the property from Sri. Appanna, he
let out a small thatched roof to Sri. Appanna on rental basis.
However, during June 1947 Sri. Appanna, left the village and
his whereabouts were not known. Taking advantage of the
situation Sri. Muddaiah again occupied the thatched house
illegally which compelled the predecessors of the petitioners
to file OS No.383/1947-48 for eviction and recovery of
possession. The said suit was dismissed in terms of Judgment
and Decree dated 02.04.1949. The petitioners claim that since
Sri. Muddaiah had already sold his interest, he could not claim
to be in possession of the property. However, Sri. Muddaiah
filed O.S.No.205/1973 before the Principal Second Munsiff at
Bangalore for perpetual injunction where the Court granted an
interm order dated 1.02.1974. Later the suit was dismissed
on 15.1.1979. It is claimed that respondent No.4, claiming to
be the daughter of Sri. Muddaiah had filed an application to
insert her in respect of an area measuring 120 feet x 31 feet
on the basis of interim order granted in OS No.205/1973. The
respondent No.3 had conducted an enquiry, where at, one of
the petitioners filed objections. The case was referred to the
legal Cell, BBMP, who opined that as per the documents
submitted by the respondent No.4, her father Sri. Muddaiah
had acquired the property. Following this, the khatha of the
property came to be entered in the name of respondent No.4,
which was challenged before the respondent No.1, who
dismissed the Review Petition on the ground that the case
presented by the petitioner involved complicated questions of
fact and law, which required adjudication by a Civil Court.
Hence the petitioners have challenged the above orders in the
present writ petition.
3. The aforesaid facts itself indicates that the
petitioners as well as respondent No.4, are claiming title to
the property based on antecedent documents. A perusal of
the writ petition more particularly ground No.27 indicates that
disputed question of facts are involved which require
adjudication by a Civil Court which definitely cannot be
decided by respondent No.1.
4. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the
respondent No.1, does not call for any interference. The
petitioners is at liberty to take such steps as is provided in law
to establish their title against the respondent No.4, in respect
of property in question before the Competent Civil Court.
Which is however subject to the law relating to limitation. If a
suit is filed, the petitioners are entitled to establish their title/
possession of property in question, not withstanding the fact
that the khata stands in the name of the respondent No.4.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
