Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
Sri. P. K. Somashekar Reddy S/o Late Krishna Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Corporation Buildings, N.R.Square, Bangalore - Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos.2521325215/2019 (LBBMP)
Decided On : 08-05-2020
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 – Section 114A – Katha – Sale Deed – Petitioners have filed petition assailing order of Joint Commissioner (Appeal) whereby katha effected to name of petitioners has been set aside with a consequential direction to Assistant Revenue Officer to transfer katha of schedule ‘C’ property in name of respondent nos.4 to 6, while considering petition of respondents under section 114A of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 – Whether sale deed executed in favour of petitioners though registered on 04-05-2016 would take effect from 01-03-2016 which is date on which sale deed was executed and must be taken note of in preference to sale deed executed in favour of nos.4 to 6, is a matter beyond jurisdiction of respondent Commissioner BBMP and ought to be decided by civil courts. – Held, Once katha entry has been cancelled, respondent BBMP ought to have relegated parties to work out their rights before civil court in light of rival claims viz., that of petitioners that sale deed dated 04-05-2016 would take effect from 01-03-2016 which is date of execution of sale deed, and claim of respondent nos.4 to 6 who rely upon sale deed dated 19-03-2016. – It is a settled position of law that respondent-BBMP while considering rival contentions in proceedings for review of entry, by Commissioner in course of proceedings under Section 114 of Act, cannot adjudicate questions of title. – Same principle would also be applicable even with respect to proceedings under section 114A. – Power conferred would further extend to ‘pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit’. – Once entry was set aside appropriate course would be to relegate parties to work out their rights before civil court. – Impugned order is set aside in part insofar as it relates to direction that Katha entry be made in name of respondent No. 4 to 6, only other consequential direction is that parties are at liberty to assert their rights before civil court till which time Katha entry would continue to stand in name of vendors of petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 to 6. – Petitions Partly Allowed
ORDER :
The petitioners have filed the petition assailing the order of Joint Commissioner (Appeal) dated 07.06.2019 whereby the katha effected to the name of the petitioners has been set aside with a consequential direction to the Assistant Revenue Officer to transfer katha of schedule ‘C’ property in the name of respondent nos.4 to 6, while considering the petition of the respondents under section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.
2. The admitted facts being that respondent nos.4 to 6 have purchased the entirety of the property which is a subject matter of dispute through the registered sale deed dated 19.03.2016.
3. On the other hand the petitioners have purchased portion of the same property measuring an extent of 13721 square feet and 6312 square feet from the same vendors through the general power of attorney holders who were the petitioners themselves through sale deeds executed on 01-03-2016 though registered on 04-05-2016.
4. The petitioners on the strength of sale deeds executed in their favour have made application before the respondent BBMP to effect Katha into their names and on the basis of such a request the respondent BBMP had effected Katha into the names of the petitioners on 02-12-2016 and 01-03-2017.
5. The said katha entry made in the name of the petitioners has been challenged by way of a petition filed under section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act contending that the petitioners had suppressed information regarding pendency of civil suits with the owner of the land and had failed to mention the settlement and withdrawal of the suit by the owner while affirming the sale deed in favour Respondents nos.4 to 6.
6. The said review petition filed before the Commissioner BBMP came to be allowed whereby the Katha effected in the names of the petitioners came to be setaside and consequently the Assistant Revenue Officer was directed to effect Katha into the name of respondent nos.4 to 6. It is that order that has been assailed in the present proceedings.
7. The petitioners have contended that the memo filed by the landowner accepting execution of sale deed in favour of respondent nos.4 to 6 in the civil suit filed seeking specific performance, would not bind the petitioners, that the nondisclosure of pendency of the suit between the land owner, petitioners, respondent no.4 and other parties was of no relevance, that the reference in the impugned order as regards the power of attorney executed in favour of respondent nos.4 to 6 does not take note of the absence of power in the said power of attorney conferring power on the said respondents to alienate the property, that the further finding in the impugned order that the respondent nos.4 to 6 have got the sale deed executed at an earlier point of time on 19.03.2016 and the sale deed in favour of the respondents was registered only on 04.05.2016 is beyond the power conferred in an enquiry under section 114 A of the Act. It is also contended that as the katha was already effected in the name of the petitioners the contention urged in the review petition ought to have been taken note of in an appropriate manner by holding that the question as to which of the sale deeds was earlier was a matter to be decided by the civil court and the respondent nos. 4 to 6 were to have been relegated to seek for appropriate remedy before the civil court, while allowing the entry in the name of the petitioners to continue till then.
8. The respondents 4 to 6 on the other hand have contended that the entire property has been purchased through registered sale deed dated 19-03-2016 whereas the sale deed of the petitioners was registered only on 04-05-2016 though executed on 01.03.2016 and as the title and property had passed onto respondent nos.4 to 6 by registration of sale deed, the sale deed executed earlier but registered later in favour of the petitioners was void. By placing reliance on section 47 of the Registration Act and the judgement in Ghanshyam S
SupremeToday
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
