Back
2004 Supreme(Kar) 581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Hon'ble Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
Shantamma - Appellant
Vs.
Bangalore Mahanagar Palike and others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 27034 of 2001
Decided on : 06-10-2004
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. G. Papi Reddy
Mr. B.V. Muralidhar, M. Raghavendra, D. Aswathappa
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the Corporation Authorities should not determine ownership disputes and should direct the parties to seek resolution in a Civil Court, as emphasized by the interpretation of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Section 123.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Corporation Records - Sale Deed, Katha - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Section 123] - The court discussed the disputed property, sale deed, and the issuance of katha in the name of the 3rd respondent. The legal provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Section 123 were interpreted to emphasize that the Corporation Authorities should not venture into determining ownership disputes and should direct the parties to seek resolution in a Civil Court. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of this legal provision, leading to the quashing of the endorsement and directing the parties to approach the Civil Court for determination of their rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the legal heir of the property owner, sought to quash the endorsement in favor of the 3rd respondent and to direct the Corporation Authorities to register the property in the petitioner's name. The Corporation had issued an endorsement in favor of the 3rd respondent, based on a sale deed dated 24-5-1972, which was disputed by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Corporation Authorities had acted in a biased manner by issuing the endorsement in favor of the 3rd respondent, despite the ongoing dispute over the property ownership. The court emphasized that the Corporation Authorities should not determine ownership disputes and directed the parties to seek resolution in a Civil Court.
Issues: The main issue was the biased action of the Corporation Authorities in issuing the endorsement in favor of the 3rd respondent, despite the ongoing property ownership dispute. The court also addressed the undue haste and biased manner in which the Corporation Authorities handled the applications of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Section 123, which emphasized that the Corporation Authorities should not determine ownership disputes and should direct the parties to seek resolution in a Civil Court. The court's decision was also influenced by the biased and hasty actions of the Corporation Authorities.
Final Decision: The court quashed the endorsement in favor of the 3rd respondent and directed the Corporation Authorities not to issue katha in the name of any party, pending a proper determination by the contesting parties in a Civil Court. The court allowed the writ petition, levying exemplary costs on the respondent-Authorities and permitting the Corporation to recover the cost from the erring officer responsible for the endorsement.
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.--This writ petition is filed by a person, who claims to be legal heir of the owner of the property in respect of which property disputes have arisen for the purpose of entering the names of the present owner of the property in the records of the Corporation, precisely to indicate the name of the owner in the folios of the Corporation records.
2. The 1st and 2nd respondents-Corporation Authorities having effected the name of the 3rd respondent in the revenue records as the kathadar in respect of house property bearing old Survey Number 5/1 present katha number 34-A situated at Ramakrishna Mutt Layout, Gavipuram Guttahalli, Kempegowda Nagar, Bangalore 19, in terms of endorsement vide Annexure-L, dated 28-6-2001, petitioner has approached this Court claiming that the Corporation Authorities have acted in an arbitrary and biased manner in giving such an endorsement in favour of the 3rd respondent, is seeking for quashing the endorsement Annexure-L, dated 28-6-2001 and for a further direction to the Corporation Authorities to register the katha of the said property in the name of the petitioner.
3. This writ petition was admitted on 17-7-2001 and this Court had granted an interim order staying the operation of the endorsement dated 28-6-2001.
4. Respondents have entered appearance through Counsel. 1 and 2nd respondents are represented by learned Counsel Sri Muralidhar, and have also filed their statement of objections. Likewise the 3rd respondent is represented by Sri Aswathappa, learned Counsel and has also filed the statement of objections.
5. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings in this petition, as well as the record that is placed before the Court by Sri Muralidhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation. A few undisputed facts leading to the petition are that the disputed property, it appears forms part of a bigger area of the property in the same Survey Number 5/1 of Bangalore Sough Taluk, which was originally owned by one Andanappa. It is a portion of this property, which was sold by the said Andanappa measuring 25 ft. x 80 ft. in terms of a sale deed dated 18-3-1965 to one B. Ramu. It is also the common case of the parties that from out of the land purchased from Andanappa, Ramu in turn sold an extent of 21 ft. x 27 ft. in favour of H.C. Hanumantaiah in terms of sale deed dated 28-2-1972.
6. It is the claim of the 3rd respondent herein that this extent of land, which had a house property in the area measuring 21 ft. x 27 ft. had been in turn sold in her favour on 24-5-1972 and it is also the case of the 3rd respondent the sale deed has been duly registered etc.
7. Petitioner is the wife of the said H.C. Hanumantaiah and it appears that the petitioner along with Hanumantaiah had resided in a portion of the property and other parts had been tenanted. While, it is the claim of the petitioner, that the petitioner apart from living in a portion of this property is collecting rents from the tenants, this aspect is disputed by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, who submits that in respect of the other portions in occupation of the tenants, other than the portion occupied by the petitioner, it is the 3rd respondent who is collecting the rents. It also transpires that the said Hanumantaiah under whom the 3rd respondent claims as a purchaser of the property under the sale deed dated 24-5-1972 and under whom the petitioner claims as a successor, pursuant to his death on 13-4-1981, had not taken steps immediately after the respective events viz., either after 1972 by the 3rd respondent or after 1981 by the petitioner to have the katha of the property changed to their respective names. It appears that the 3rd respondent had initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner by filing HRC No. 1820 of 1983 before the Court of Small Causes Judge at Bangalore, and the matter having come up to this Court in CRP No. 4338 of 1986 it was remanded to the
