Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN, J.
G.B. Uday and Another – Petitioners
Versus
K. Mohan Kumar and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 12427, 13387-13389 of 2017
Decided On : 10-04-2017
illegality - order of amalgamation of Kathas - Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Section 114-A - The court discussed the legality of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner allowing the review petition filed by the respondent against the amalgamation of Katha. The court referred to Section 114-A of the Act, which provides grounds for setting aside the transfer of title, and emphasized the requirement for spot inspection and verification of the existence of public passages or roads before amalgamation. The court upheld the Joint Commissioner's decision to remand the case for fresh enquiry, stating that the interest of the petitioners was not adversely affected.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the legality of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner allowing the review petition filed by the respondent against the amalgamation of Katha. The property in question was bequeathed to the petitioners by their father, and they requested the BBMP to amalgamate the Katha after his death. The respondent objected, alleging encroachment on a public road.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Joint Commissioner's decision to remand the case for fresh enquiry was justified, as the spot inspection and verification of public passages were not conducted before the amalgamation. The court held that the interest of the petitioners was not adversely affected by the decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the order allowing the review petition, the grounds for setting aside the transfer of title under Section 114-A of the Act, and the authority of the Joint Commissioner to exercise the power of review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of spot inspection and verification of public passages before amalgamation, as required by Section 114-A of the Act. It also clarified the authority of the Joint Commissioner to review the decision either suo-moto or at the instance of a party.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, as the court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
1. The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order, dated 07.11.2016, passed by the Joint Commissioner (South), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP, for short), whereby the learned Joint Commissioner has allowed the review petition filed by the respondent No. 1, Mr. K. Mohan Kumar, against the amalgamation of the Katha, which allegedly belonged to the petitioners, and has directed that fresh enquiries should be held, and the parties should be heard, and a fresh order with regard to amalgamation of Katha should be passed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that according to the petitioners, their father, Mr. G. Basavaraj, was the owner of an agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 33/2A, 33/3, 34/6, 34/8 in Doddabylakhana, Doddamavalli village, Bangalore. Presently the property bears No. 24/2, Dispensary Cross, J.C. Road, Ward No. 118, Bangalore. Further, according to the petitioners, the said property fell in their father's share after the family property was partitioned by a Partition Deed dated 30.12.1954. The said partition deed was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore City. The fact of the partition and the transfer of the properties in the name of petitioner's father was noticed by the then Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk in his Demand Notice dated 02.11.1960. Moreover, according to the petitioners, subsequently, the petitioners' father got a private road laid through the property in question. Thereafter, petitioners' father was informed by the Corporation about the laying of sewerage line in the property in question, belonging to him. By letter dated 07.07.1967, petitioners' father consented to the laying of sewerage line through his property.
3. According to the Encumbrance Certificate dated 28.10.2007, the property in question was re-numbered as 24/2, 24/3, 24/4, 24/5, and 24/6.
4. On 16.11.1977, a preliminary Notification under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act was published, wherein, it was shown that the property belonging to the petitioners' father would be acquired for the public purpose of formation of road from J.C. Road to Lalbagh Fort Road. However, according to the petitioners, subsequently, the acquisition proceedings were dropped and the property continued to be in possession of their father.
5. On 25.02.2013, Mr. G. Basavaraj expired leaving behind a Will, dated 14.05.2009, wherein Mr. Basavaraj has bequeathed the property in question to his son and daughter (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 before this Court). Subsequent to their father's death, the petitioners requested the BBMP to amalgamate the Katha of the property bearing No. 24/2, 24/3, 24/4, and 24/6. By order dated 07.06.2013, the kathas were amalgamated. According to the petitioners, ever since then, they have paid the taxes for the property and they are in physical possession of the same.
6. However, when the petitioners tried to fix a gate in front of the property in question, Mr. Mohan Kumar, respondent No. 1, tried to prevent the petitioners from doing so, inter-alia on the ground that petitioners were encroaching upon the BBMP road. Since he was aggrieved by the petitioners' action, he filed a petition before the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF, for short) inter-alia on the ground that the petitioners have encroached upon a public road. According to the petitioners, BMTF subsequently allowed the matter to rest.
7. Therefore, Mr. Mohan Kumar invoked the review jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (the Act, for short). By order dated 07.11.2016, the Joint Commissioner has allowed the review petition in the aforementioned terms. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
8. Mr. K.P. Asokumar, the learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended that the reasons given by the Joint Commissioner for allowing the review petition are beyond the scope and ambit of Section 114-A of the Act. According to Section 114-A of the Act, the Commiss
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
