Karnataka High Court
Sri K G Ravi vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 January, 2024
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:593
WP No. 28753 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 28753 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K G RAVI
S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/A ASHWATHNAGARA
KADURU - 577 548
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
2. SMT. SHAHINA ALI
W/O SRI. T. MOHAMMED ALI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A LAKSHMISHA NAGARA
KADURU - 577 548
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
... PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by VIJAYA P (BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
D.C. OFFICE
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
KADURU - 577 548
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:593
WP No. 28753 of 2023
3. SRI. K.M. ANIL KUMAR
S/O K.E. MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A 'MALIYAMMA KRUPA'
NEAR HIGHWAY ENGLISH SCHOOL
KADURU - 577 548
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
4. SMT. CHANNAMMA
W/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A NO.5, VFCC COLONY
KADURU - 577 548
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT ... DELETED V/O
DATED 03.01.2024
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1
SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI K.S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 03.01.2024, R4 IS DELETED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 19/10/2023 MADE IN NO.
SAM/DUDC/05/2021-22 PASSED BY THE R1 HEREIN
(ANNEXURE-A) BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND
CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have called in question the correctness of
the order dated 19.10.2023 at Annexure-A whereby the
NC: 2024:KHC:593
Deputy Commissioner has passed an order allowing the
appeal and has set aside the Katha entry made in favour
of petitioners herein.
2. Petitioners claim that katha entry was made in
their favour pursuant to the sale deed dated 26.08.2009.
It is further submitted that there were prior sale deeds
and katha entries as well. The primary legal point
canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioners is that
the impugned order at Annexure-A by the Deputy
Commissioner has been passed on the basis of a petition
filed invoking Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities
Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). It is submitted that such
exercise of power under Section 306 relating to the
correctness of katha entry cannot be entertained as the
scope of power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner
under Section 306 is limited to be exercised in case of
resolutions which are likely to cause injury or annoyance
to the public, or would lead to a breach of the peace. It is
submitted that the dispute is a private dispute between
NC: 2024:KHC:593
the parties and accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner
could not have invoked Section 306 of the Act.
3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.
Nagamma vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of
Municipal Administration and others - ILR 2016 KAR
4628.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the rights of the respondents to question the
entry numbered as assessment No.2569/1/2379/1 of the
petitioners ought to be preserved in accordance with law.
5. It must be noticed that the petition filed by
respondent No.3 before the Deputy Commissioner at
Annexure-D was invoking the power under Section 306 of
the Act. The prayer was for setting aside the entry as per
the assessment No.2569/1/2379/1. Clearly, the dispute
between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is a private
dispute. The power of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be
invoked for interference in private disputes and it comes
NC: 2024:KHC:593
out clearly from the decision in the case of Smt. Nagamma
(supra) referred to above. Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of
the said judgment would be of relevance, which is
extracted hereinbelow:
"10. If the basic tenets of provisions of Section
306 of the Act that there should be an actual or
threatened breach of public peace on the basis of
an order or resolution of the Municipal Council are
absent, then completely abusing the power the
Deputy Commissioner cannot entertain such a
petition or appeal of a private party. It is clear
that the said Deputy Commissioner has totally not
applied his mind to the relevant provisions of the
Act itself under which he was exercising his
jurisdiction.
11. The said provisions giving extra ordinary and
superior powers to the Deputy Commissioner over
the elected public body like Municipal Council to
suspend the order or resolution of a duly elected
public body, it does not entitle the Deputy
Commissioner to enter into the realm of private
disputes between the parties like between the
petitioner and respondent No.4 in the present
case over the "katha entries" in the record of the
Municipal Council. Obviously the change of "katha
NC: 2024:KHC:593
entries" as sought in the present case by the
respondent No.4 was a private dispute which
could be resolved only through a properly
instituted civil suit and the question of any breach
of public peace could not arise by any stretch of
imagination in the present case."
6. Accordingly, on this sole ground of lack of
power of the Deputy Commissioner to invoke Section 306
of the Act, the order at Annexure-A is set aside. However,
liberty is reserved to the 3rd respondent to take
appropriate steps for legal redressal as regards the
assessment No.2569/1/2379/1 as is permissible under
law, if circumstances so occasion. All contentions on
merits are kept open.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VP
