TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) HOUSE No. 8-1-140 situate in the new housing colony at bidar stood registered in the name of Smt. Yaseen begum, w/o the petitioner herein. it was in the year 1974, transferred in favour of the third respondent Shris. s. alvi in terms of a sale deed executed by the former. In the year 1993, an entry recognising the transfer in favour of Shrialvi, was also made in the property register maintained by the city municipal council, bidar. By another sale deed executed and registered on the 13th of august, 1999, the house in question was transferred to the 2nd respondent in consideration of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. An application made by the purchaser to the city municipal council for what is described as change of khata in his name was opposed by the petitioner, who filed his objections, in which it was inter alia asserted that he was the real owner of the property in question which was held by his wife Smt. Yaseen begum as a benamidar. It was further stated that the so-called transfer of the property in favour of the third respondent-s. s. alvi, was in essence a mortgage in consideration of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which the petitioner had secured from the mortgagee. The objections made reference to o. s. No. 158 of 1997, pending before the civil judge, jr. Division, bidar, in which the petitioner/plaintiff has sought a decree for redemption of the property in question.

( 2 ) THE president of the municipal council, found no merit in the objections and while rejecting the same, directed an entry in favour of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

( 3 ) MR. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, made a three-fold submission in support of the challenge mounted in the petition. firstly it was contended that the impugned order was incompetent as a transfer of khata could be directed only by the council or by the commissioner acting on its behalf. Alternatively, it was argued that any entry/mutation, in regard to the transfer of the property, could be ordered only upon an enquiry into the competing claims of the parties before the council. No such enquiry having been conducted at any stage, the order was illegal. Thirdly, it was urged that the order did not record any reason and therefore fell short of the legal requirements.

( 4 ) MR. Hinchigeri, on the other hand contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to question the impugned order. The property in question was according to the learned counsel registered in the name of Smt. Yaseen begum, who had sold the same to Shrialvi, for valuable consideration. The transfer by Sri alvi was recognised by the municipal authorities also by making an appropriate entry in the register which had remained unquestioned. A further transfer by Shrialvi, in favour of the 2nd respondent for consideration could not therefore be challenged either by the petitioner who had nothing to do with the property or even by his wife the vendor. The argument that the petitioner was the real owner of the property was not according to Mr. Hinchigeri available to him in mutation proceedings, under Section 113 of Karnataka municipalities Act, his remedy being a civil suit which he had already instituted. the civil court had in fact examined the question of issue of an injunction and found that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case. an appeal against the said order had also failed as was evident from a copy of the appellate order placed on record.

( 5 ) SECTION 111 of the Municipalities Act, requires every person primarily liable for the payment of any tax qua any property to give notice of any transfer that he may effect of the title in such property. The person acquiring the title is also similarly required to inform the municipal council about the transfer. Section 112 prescribes the form of notice envisaged by Section 111 whereas Section 113 empowers the municipal council to substitute in the municipal register the name of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document