1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO. 14279/2006 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN: L. RAMDEV S/O LATE M LATCHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 19/24, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 46.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. M.V VEDACHALA, ADV.,) AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST)
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAYO HALL, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BHARATHINAGAR, BANGALORE.
4. R. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O RANGANATHA CHETTIAR,
2
AGED ABOUT 35 YERAS, NO.7, VANNAVAR STREET, PARANGIVELU VILLAGE, CHIDAMBARAM COLONY, T.N.
5. M.R MUNIYAN
367, MLETHERU RAJAJINAGARA, KILINJALMEDU-TAL RERU PO., KARAIKAL 609 605, PONDICHERRY STATE.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
7. SMT. JAYAMMA, D/O. LATE P. ANJANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A KAISOPPINA BEEDI, RAMANAGARAM TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, REP. BY GPA HOLDER, MOHAMMED NAVEEDULLA S/O LATE H.M. ATAULLA, AGED 36 YEARS, NO.39, FF2, NASCO SUNRAYS APARTMENTS, HAINES ROAD, CLEVELAND TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M. SIVAPPA, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. S.B. TOTAD, ADV., FOR R4; SRI. M. RAVISON, ADV., FOR R5; SRI. E.R. DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R6; SRI. MANIKAPPA PATIL, ADV., FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DT. 27.9.2006 VIDE ANNX-P. DIRECT THE R1 TO R3 TO
3
CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN KHATHA IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY & ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Petitioner has assailed the order dated
27.09.2006, Annexure-P, of the 2nd respondent-Joint
Commissioner (East), Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
(“BMP” for short) exercising review jurisdiction under
Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation
Act, 1976, (‘Act’ for short), at the instance of
respondents-4 and 5, substituting the name of the
petitioner to that of 4th Respondent, in the Fiscal
Register of the BMP in respect of immovable property
bearing Municipal No.1, and 1/1, Muniswamappa
Garden, Dobhi Ghat Road, Ulsoor.
2. Respondents-4 and 5, entered caveat and
opposed the petition by filing statement of objections,
interalia, alleging that in fact petitioner has no right,
4
title and interest in the immovable property in question.
Respondent No.7 though not a party to the proceeding
before the 2nd respondent, in the review petition,
nevertheless, was impleaded as party respondent No.7.
3. Petitioner claimed to be owner in possession
of land in old Sy. No. 88 new Sy. No: 102, measuring 36
guntas and old Sy No. 89 new Sy No: 103 measuring 1
Acre 12 guntas; Respondent 4 claimed title to land
measuring 32 guntas in old Sy No. 85 new Sy No. 102
and 1 Acre 4 guntas in old Sy No. 86 new Sy. No. 103;
Respondent 7 claimed land measuring 1 Acre 32 guntas
in Sy. No. 104 of Ulsoor village, Kasba hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk.
4. Petition was also opposed by respondents-1
to 3 BMP, interalia, seeking to sustain the order
impugned Annexure-P as well-merited, fully justified
and not calling for interference, while, asserting that
there was a factual dispute over identity and location of
5
the immovable property belonging to the petitioner as
well as respondent No.4.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, regard being had to the conflicting claims of the
parties, by order dated: 18.12.2007, BMP was directed
to place material before Court which was considered by
it, over location and identity of the properties in
question. The Hon’ble Chief Justice by order dated
11.12.2007, specially ordered that, the petition be heard
by this Court. On 17.4.2008, learned standing Counsel
for BMP sought time to refer to all relevant materials
relating to khatha transfer and identity of the property.
After protracted dates of hearing, one
Dr.S.Subramanya, Commissioner of BMP on 25.7.2008
filed an affidavit of even date stating that action against
concerned officials would be taken for not having made
available the records relating to khatha transfer in
question. On 21.7.2009, learned counsel for BMP
6
submitted that the record leading to recording
petitioner’s name in its Fiscal Register, was untraceable
and efforts would be made to secure and produce it,
while file enclosing some records when placed were
directed to be kept in safe custody. In the wake of non-
availability of record, on 6.2.2009, the following order
was passed:
“Having heard the parties for considerable
time and issued directions to the Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike to furnish the record
relating to the change of katha in the name
of Latchmaiah and over the identity of the
property in question, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli,
learned counsel for the Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike files an affidavit dated
5-2-2009 of one Puttaswamy, Additional
Commissioner (East), stating that the said
file is about 20 years old and despite efforts,
is not traceable in the office of the Palike. If
that is so, all that can be said about this
Palike is that it is neither responsible nor
accountable to the citizens of the Bangalore
City if as the custodian of relevant records, it
7
is unable to produce the records relating to
transfer of katha made some 20 years ago,
which speaks volumes about the business
that is transacted at the hands of the officers
of the Palike. Less said the better. As to
who is to be held responsible is a matter
which certainly needs to be decided and is
presently postponed till the next date of
hearing.
The claim of the petitioner is that his
grandfather purchased lands in Sy.Nos.88
and 89 of Ulsoor, way back in the year 1901
and 1902 and that, it is the very same land
that is identified by the petitioner to be
presently located adjacent to the Ulsoor
tank. It was in this background of facts that
this Court had directed the Corporation to
furnish papers relating to the person who
identified this land when the katha was first
made out in the name of Latchmaiah. In the
absence of such a record, Sri. Vedachala,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the records possibly could be available
with the office of the City Survey, Bangalore
8
in view of the earlier litigation in the form of
Revision Petition No.18/2002-03 said to be
pending before the Joint Director of Land
Records, Bangalore.
In these circumstances, I think it
appropriate to direct the petitioner to
implead the State of Karnataka by its
Revenue Department as party-Respondent
No.6. Petitioner to amend the cause-title,
serve copies of the Writ petition along with
annexures on the learned Government
Advocate, who is directed to take notice and
to secure the records from the Joint Director
or from any other authority in respect of the
lands in Sy.Nos.88 and 89 of Ulsoor Village.
Further hearing of I.A.No.II/2007 for
impleading, is deferred till the next date of
hearing. List after five weeks.”
On 31.3.2009, the following order was passed:
“The Assistant Director of Land
Records, City Survey-II present before Court
is identified by the learned Government
Advocate. The claim of the petitioner is that
his grandfather purchased land in Sy.Nos.88
9
and 89 of Ulsoor during the years 1901 and
1902 and that the land in question as
identified by the petitioner is the very same
land which was assigned Sy.Nos. 88 and 89.
According to the petitioner, on a resurvey,
the Survey Department has reassigned new
Nos. 102 and 103. After having heard the
learned counsel for the parties and perused
the pleadings, there was reasonable cause to
suspect the very identification of the
aforesaid lands. In other words, as to
whether they are within the area
encompassed by the Ulsoor Tank or outside
the said tank. An answer to this question is
very essential for enabling the Bangalore
City Corporation to address itself over issue
of katha for the said lands. This
necessitated since the Bangalore City
Corporation was unable to place material
before this Court over the issue of katha for
the first time, in order to appreciate as to
whether the land was identified when such a
katha was made out in the name of
Latchmaiah. It is in this view of the matter
that this Court, by order dated 6-2-2009
10
directed impleading the State of Karnataka,
Revenue Department as party- Respondent
No.6.
The officers who are present before
Court are directed to hold an enquiry, secure
records and answer the query raised by this
Court and file a report. List on 27-05-2009.
6. Thereafterwards on 21.6.2009, the Assistant
Director of Land Records was directed to file a better
report within two weeks.
7. The 7th respondent was directed to come on
record by order dated 2.12.2009, whence, I.A.2/2007
was allowed.
8. It appears that on 06.08.2010, at the request
of learned counsel for the parties, the ADLR-City
Survey-2, was directed to hold a comprehensive survey
over the lands reassigned Sy.Nos.102 and 103 whether
were old Sy.No.88 & 89 respectively and old Survey
Nos.85 & 86 as well as land Sy.No.104. Parties filed
11
their respective memo of instructions enclosing copies of
their documents to the ADLR who is said to have held
an enquiry and filed a report into the Registry on
15.06.2011, The report of ADLR was opposed by filing
statement of objections of the 4th respondent on
19.12.2011. Thereafterwards, the petition was
adjourned at the request of parties who desired to settle
the matter out of Court and report settlement. On
31.5.2012, the following order was passed :
“Learned Counsel for R7 submits that
the Commissioner’s report discloses that the
property subject matter of conveyance in
favour of the 7th respondent is said to have
fallen within Sy.No.104 of Muniswamappa
garden. If that is so, then it is for the 7th
respondent to seek necessary khatha for
that property from the BMP, since the
petitioner and 4th respondent have staked a
claim to property in old Sy. Nos. 88 and 89,
New Nos. 102 and 103 of Muniswamappa
garden in respect of which the Commissioner
is said to have reported their non-existence.
12
Learned Counsel for BMP submits that
if an application is filed by the 7th
respondent for khatha, it would consider the
same in accordance with law and pass
orders thereon at the earliest.
As I am required to head the Circuit
Bench in Dharwad, list this matter in 3rd
week of July 2012.
9. On 31.5.2012, learned counsel for the
parties submitted that the parties have arrived at the
terms of settlement and would be placed before the
Court, if granted time. Petition was adjourned on
several dates of hearing for reporting settlement. At the
instance of learned counsel for BMP, on 9.6.2014, the
following order was passed:
“Learned Counsel for BBMP submits
that the claim of the petitioner over the
property in Sy.Nos.88 and 89 (New Nos.102
and 103) bearing CTS Nos.85 and 86, while
the contesting respondent in whose name
the khatha is changed claims Sy.Nos.85, 86
(New Nos.102, 103) and CTS Nos.85 and 86.
13
According to the learned Counsel, there is
considerable dispute over the location as
well as the claim of title to the property.
Learned Counsel suggests that if the
Government is directed to place on record
the survey map of Ulsoor including
Kensington road disclosing CTS numbers,
then the location would be certain over
enquiry by the city survey in respect of
Sy.Nos.85 and 86. Learned Government
Advocate is directed to secure the records
and placed on record the certified copy of the
said map. List on 23.06.2014.”
10. Learned counsel for the parties were unable
to report settlement, hence, on 28.7.2014, when the
petition was heard, the following order was passed:
“Sri. Vedachala, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, submits that in the genealogy
one Muniswamappa @ Jayappa, died leaving
behind Lakshmaiah, whose children seven in
number are Ramdev, Jaidev, Shailendra,
Suresh Babu, Raikala, Yashoda and Sujaya.
Muniswamappa is said to have purchased
14
36 guntas of land in Sy. No.88 and 16 gunts
of land in Sy. No.89 under registered sale
deed dated 30.7.1901, with common
boundaries,
East by : Kodikatte Someswara Inam West by : Kere katte North by : Kambali Reararama South by : Bhaskar Ali
Under the sale deed dated 2.10.1901,
Muniswamappa is said to have purchased
20 guntas of land in Sy. No.89, bounded on
the:
East by : Anjaneya Inamthi land West by : Kere katte North by : Kere katte South by : Muniswamppa’s land
By yet another registered sale deed
dated 14.1.1902, Muniswamappa is said to
have purchased 2 guntas of land in Sy.
No.89, bounded on the:
East by : Someswara Inamthi land West by : Kere katte North by : Kere katte South by : Muniswamappa’s property
The site bearing No.105 measuring
29½ ft., x 72 ft., guntas was purchased by
M. Lakshmaiah, son of Muniswamappa
15
under sale deed dated 9.8.1933 executed by
one Gangadhar, which is said to have carved
out of Sy. No.89/1, bounded on the:
East by : Plot No.4 of Ranganayakalu Naik
West by : Plot No.6 North by : Conservancy South by : Road
This property is said to have been
conveyed to one Kanamma under sale deed
dated 10.9.1933.
From out of the land purchased in Sy.
No.89, M. Lakshmaiah is said to have
conveyed area measuring 90’ x 8’ under sale
deed dated 22.8.1917 in favour of
Latchmaiah @ Pillaiah, boundaries of which
are:
East by : Land of Muniyappa West by : Road North by : Remaining portion of the land South by : Galli
Under partition deed dated 6.9.2002,
the siblings of Ramdev are said to have
partitioned the land in Sy. Nos.85 and 86
[according to learned Counsel wrongly
mentioned as survey numbers and ought to
be CTS Numbers] in Sy. Nos.102 and 103.
16
The document of partition is not before
Court, much less, sketch annexed to it.
According to learned Counsel for the
petitioner, a resurvey of land in Sy. Nos.88
and 89 conducted in the year 1905 discloses
that Sy.No.88 was assigned re-survey
No.102 Annexure-B1 measuring 36 guntas
and Sy.No.89 was assigned re-survey No.103
Annexure-B2 measuring 44 guntas [1 acre 4
guntas].
The Index of land Annexures-C1 & C2
are said to make reference to Sy. Nos.103
and 102 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas and 31
guntas + 4 guntas PK [totally measuring 35
guntas], respectively, without disclosing the
year in which the entries were made in the
Index of land.
Learned Counsel points to Annexures-
E1, E2, E3 and E4 said to be the extracts
from the tax registers of the Corporation of
City of Bangalore in respect of Municipal
No.1 and Municipal No.1/1 for the years
1989 to 23.1.1996; 1997 to 2004-05
respectively. While Annexures – E1 & E2
17
record the name of Muniswamappa,
Annexures-E3 & E4 disclose the name of
Ramdev.
The State Government filed memo
dated 20.6.2014 enclosing a map of the local
area No.89, Murphy Town, Bangalore City,
disclosing CTS Numbers without disclosing
the survey number or re-survey numbers.
Although learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that CTS Nos.85 and 86
relate to the property belonging to the
petitioner, there is no material to establish
prima facie that CTS Nos.85 and 86 correlate
to re-survey Nos.103, 102 or old Survey
Nos.88 and 89.
There is also no material forthcoming
from the respondent/Municipal Corporation,
as to whether municipal Nos.1 or 1/1 has
any relation to the aforesaid survey number
or re-survey number, much less, CTS
Number. Therefore, there is identity crisis.
The revenue records relating to the
land in question since they were revenue
bearing lands cannot but be in the custody
of the Revenue Department and therefore the
18
State Government is required to place that
on record. So also the City Survey Records
are in the custody of the Revenue
Department and village map which will also
have to be placed on record.
As to when the lands fell within the
jurisdiction of the Municipality since pre
1949 Bangalore City was ‘Municipality’ and
post 1949, it became ‘Corporation’ under the
Bangalore City Municipal Corporation Act,
1949 since replaced by Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976. Therefore, it is for
the Municipal Corporation to place on record
relevant material relating to the period when
the lands in question was brought within its
jurisdiction and for the first time it is
assessed to Corporation Tax and therefore
the records relating to the same are
imperative.
The synopsis filed by learned Counsel
for the petitioner is taken on record.
Relist on 31.7.2014.”
11. Although learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that there is overwhelming material relevant to
19
decide, on the fact, that petitioner is the owner of the
immovable property in question, assigned as Municipal
Nos.1 and 1/1, Muniswamappa Garden, Ulsoor, in the
wake of the claims over title to the very same property
by respondent No.4, nevertheless that submission is
unacceptable. So also, the Court would have to hazard
a finding on the location of immovable property in
question as claimed by the petitioner, vis-vis by the 4th
respondent as well as the 7th respondent, coupled with
the fact that the BMP is unable to place before the
Court the record based upon which, it identified the
location of the property in question, at the time of
recording petitioner’s name in the tax register primarily
responsible for payment of corporation tax under the
‘Act’.
12. There is force in the submission of learned
counsel for petitioner that the 2nd respondent in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 114A of the ‘Act’
20
could not have exercised a jurisdiction vested in a Civil
Court in the matter of deciding title to immovable
property as held by the Full Bench of this Court in
C.N.Nagendra Singh vs. The Special Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore District and Others1,
recording a finding that the decision of revenue Court
has to be necessarily based upon undisputed facts and
the revenue Court cannot go into the disputed question
of relationship, status of the parties, title to the property
or genuineness or otherwise of a document or challenge
to the documents on the ground of fraud, undue
influence, misrepresentation or mistake. Even
otherwise, a perusal of Section 114A of the ‘Act’ makes
it abundantly clear that the 2nd respondent, the
authority, under the Act had no jurisdiction to dwell
into documents controverted by the parties, over title to
immovable property. All that the 2nd respondent had to
do under Section 114A, is to ascertain whether the
1 ILR 2002 KAR. 2750
21
petition is made within the time limited therein, and if
there is a genuine dispute over title to the immovable
property, refer the parties to the Civil Court to have
their respective claims tried and decided in a full-
fledged adjudication. The 2nd respondent apparently
having opined that the review application was filed
within three years of the special notice recording the
petitioner’s name, however, exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in him to adjudicate the dispute over title to
immovable property. In that view of the matter, the
order impugned Annexure-P is vitiated calling for
interference.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the 4th respondent during the pendency of the
petition and interim order of stay, has since conveyed
the immovable property claimed by him, to be the very
same property as that of the petitioner and therefore,
has no subsisting interest.
22
14. Sri M.Shivappa, learned Senior Counsel, on
instructions from the instructing counsel for
respondent No.4, submits, that there is no dispute over
conveyance of the property, nevertheless the interest of
the 4th respondent requires to be protected, to deliver a
valid title to the purchasers. At this stage, Sri
Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel for respondent-
BMP submits that the name of the 4th respondent is
continued in the Fiscal Registers only for collecting
taxes.
15. According to the learned counsel for 4th
respondent the property is alienated, therefore, no
useful purpose would be served in continuing the name
of 4th respondent in the Fiscal Register. Even otherwise
also, if name of either of the petitioner or 4th respondent
is continued in the Fiscal Register, it will lead to an
incongruous situation of unidentified immovable
property, and collecting taxes from both the parties
23
which is impermissible, leading to multiplicity of
proceedings. It is needless to state that the petitioner
and 4th respondent or his successors in interest,
purchasers must approach the civil Court of competent
jurisdiction for adjudication over the right, title and
interest, as also, location of the immovable property, in
question, and it is only thereafterwards, the recovery of
taxes, after an assessment under the ‘Act’, is
permissible from the successful party. It is made clear
that BMP would have to await the decision of the Civil
Court, over the competing interests of the parties both
over title and location of the property in question.
16. In the result, petition is allowed in part. The
order impugned is quashed and BMP is directed to
delete from its Fiscal Register the names of both
petitioner and 4th respondent and await final decision of
the Civil Court. Sequentially, all other pending
applications are rejected.
24
17. BMP to consider the application of the 7th
respondent for issue of khatha in respect of Sy.No.104,
in accordance with law, and in the light of the order
dated 31.05.2012 supra.
Sd/- JUDGE
Ia
Top Related