Karnataka High Court
Sri. I. Arockianathan vs The Commissioner on 22 October, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
WP No. 22688 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 22688 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. I. AROCKIANATHAN
S/O. SRI. IRUDAYANATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 743-44,
MARIA NIVAS,
1ST CROSS, CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT,
MARATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESHA T S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. THE COMMISSIONER
signed by
ANAND N BRUHATH BANGALORE
Location: MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HIGH
COURT OF N.R. SQUARE,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE.
2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HEBBALA SUB-DIVISION,
AT MUNIREDDY PALYA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
WP No. 22688 of 2023
3. SRI. G. P. VEERABHADRAIAH
S/O LATE PAPAIAH,
ADULT BY MAJOR, R/O NO.84,
BEHIND GEDDALHALLI, MANJUNATHA FLOUR
MILL, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU -560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA N R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND
R2; SMT. SHILPA GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
a) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE KATHA
WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO. 51/A,
FORMED IN SY. NO. 66/3 AND 66/4, SITUATED IN A
LAYOUT FORMED BY NGEF EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NAGASHETTYHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE I.E. SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
WP No. 22688 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner asserts that he has purchased
site No.51/A in Survey Nos.66/3, 66/4 and other
survey numbers of Nagashettyhalli village, Bangalore
North Taluk [the Subject Property] from his vendor,
M/s NGEF Employees and Ex-employees House
Building Co-operative Society Ltd. and that this site
is part of the layout developed by this Society in the
aforesaid survey numbers. The petitioner is aggrieved
by the Endorsement dated 06.12.2022 [Annexure-A]
issued by the second respondent to produce NOC
from the Bangalore Development Authority to be
entitled for Khata for the subject Property.
2. In a shift from the position as
aforesaid, the BBMP has taken a stand before this
Court that the petitioner cannot be issued Khata for
the Subject Property because the third respondent
has already been issued with the Khata in PID
No.100/737/208 for the property claimed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
petitioner. The petitioner and the third respondent
have rival claims to the same parcel of property and
hence the dispute over the Khata.
3. The petitioner asserts that his
vendor has succeeded in the suit for permanent
injunction in O.S.No.3891/1991 [which is
commenced by an intermeddler] and its suit in O.S.
No.4215/1994 because though the suits were
decided against the petitioner's vendor, this Court
has ultimately decreed the vendor's suit dismissing
the intermeddler's suits. The petitioner relies upon
the common judgment dated 30.11.2021 in RFA
Nos.851 of 2008 connected with RFA 850/2008. The
petitioner also contends that this Court's judgment
in the aforesaid Regular First Appeals is confirmed
with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by
the apex Court in SLP (C) No. 4729-30/2022.
4. As against the afore claim, the third
respondent contends that his grandmother, Smt.
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
Narasamma, was the owner of the land in
Sy.No.66/4 of Nagashettyhalli village, Bangalore
North Taluk and that she transferred 3 acres 12
guntas in such survey number in favour of M/s
Mysore Electric Employees Cooperative Society
retaining 3 guntas for herself. This respondent also
asserts that the petitioner's vendor [the Society] has
purchased the said extent of 3 acres 12 Guntas, and
because 3 guntas is not transferred, the petitioner,
as the sole successor of Smt. Narasamma, would be
entitled to the Khata of the property and therefore
Khata is rightly mutated in his favour.
5. This Court must observe that the
second respondent could not have issued the
impugned Endorsement asking for NOC if there was
Khata for the said property in favour of the rival
claimant and the officer should have put it out as
the reason to reject the application. The officer in
giving a lame excuse has only protracted the
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
dispute. As regards the insistence on the NOC from
BDA because such NOC would indicate whether the
site claimed by the petitioner [Site No.51/A] is part
of the approved layout, this Court must refer to this
Court's opinion in RFA No.851 of 2008 connected
with RFA 850 of 2008. This Court, in the light of
the evidence that is placed on record, has observed
thus:
"24. ........No doubt, the said map is
admittedly not the original approved Layout plan
sanctioned by the BDA and was got prepared at
the instance of the Society only in December
1991. However, according to DW-2, as an
experienced person in survey of the lands and
more particularly, as a retired Assistant Director
of Land Records, he has prepared that map after
the actual visit of the site and verification of the
records. Therefore, even though the Society has
not produced the original approved Layout plan
showing the existence of site No.51A, but, it
cannot be ignored of the fact that during the
actual visit by DW-2, a site of the exactly same
dimension of suit schedule property in
O.S.No.3891/1991 was found in existence and
has been in the possession of the Society.
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
Therefore, the probability of there being specific
site with the number 51/A as on the date of
forming the Layout by the Society by getting the
approval by the BDA can be doubted, but, after
noticing the availability of a piece of land of odd
dimension in the corner after getting the formation
of the Layout, the Society has identified it as site
No.51/A by continuing and retaining its
possession, however, including the said site as
though one of the site approved by the BDA.
This Court's finding must have a reasonable play and
cannot be ignored to defeat the petitioner's possible
entitlement to Khata for the property as asserted by
him. Therefore, this Court must restore the
proceedings to the second respondent for
reconsideration with certain observations.
6. The second respondent must firstly
visit the property to ascertain the measurement of
the property, the boundaries -the details of the
adjacent properties and the occupants thereof. The
second respondent must next verify, on perusal of
the records, the reason for giving the benefit of the
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
Khata for the third respondent. Then the second
respondent must assess the relevant claims and
decide on the issuance of Khata, but then it is
settled that the revenue proceedings cannot decide
the claims to title and the second respondent's
opinion would only aid in adjudication in a properly
instituted civil proceedings, if there is dispute
notwithstanding such conclusion.
7. This Court must, in the peculiar
circumstances of the case, also stipulate that
neither the petitioner nor the third respondent can
change the nature of the property when the
proceedings before the second respondent are
pending and that if either the petitioner or the third
respondent propose to change the nature of the
property despite the dispute persisting after the
second respondent's conclusion, it must be with the
leave of the competent Court in a properly instituted
suit. Hence, the following
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed and the impugned
endorsement dated 06.12.2022
[Annexure-A] is quashed, and the
proceedings are restored to the second
respondent for conclusion in the light of
this Court's observation as aforesaid
within a period of three [3] months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
[B] The petitioner is at liberty to file a
certified copy of this order with the
second respondent within four [4] weeks
from the date of receipt thereof.
[C] The petitioner and the third respondent
are directed to maintain status quo as
regards the possession of the subject
property until there is conclusion of the
proceedings by the second respondent
observing that if either the petitioner or
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42443
the third respondent propose to
undertake any development in the
subject property even after the second
respondent's decision and there is
persisting dispute, it should only be with
the leave of the competent civil Court in
a properly instituted suit.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
NV
