Dismissed

Sri K H Nanjappa Patil v. Karnataka Housing Board

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2013WP/2021/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction order. The Court upheld the finding that the disputed property was part of acquired land and that vacant land qualifies as 'premises' under the Karnataka Housing Board Act, rejecting the petitioner's defenses.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction order against the petitioner.

Sri K H Nanjappa Patil Vs Karnataka Housing Board — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2021/2007 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

¶8

Sri. K H NANJAPPA PATIL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O. K HONNAPPA R/A. No. 76/2, VALAGERE VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri. ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR M/S. KUMAR & KUMAR, ADVS.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

¶13

KARNATAKA HOUSING

¶14

BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE – 560 009 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶15

ASST. REVENUE OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, No. 2

¶16

¶17

METROPOLITAN DIVISION RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 010. … RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By Sri. H G VASANTH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-1 Sri. R-2 SD.)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2006 PASSED BY THE 6^TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, IN M.A. No. 30/1996 VIDE ANNEXURE H AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGAMOHAN DAS, J PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the

¶24

nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.06.1996 – Annexure F passed by respondent No. 2 and confirmed by VI Additional City

¶25

Civil Judge, Bangalore, in M.A. No. 30/1996 vide order dated 13.11.2006 – Annexure H.

¶26

The subject matter of this writ petition is property bearing

¶27

No. 3, Municipal khatha No. 76/2 of Valagerhalli village,

¶28

¶29

Vaddarapalya, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk which is fully described in the schedule to the writ petition and hereinafter referred to as the schedule property. The petitioner contends that the schedule property is a site in a layout formed by the Karnataka Minorities Building Owners Society. The society sold the schedule property in favour of one Smt. L.Nagaratna under a registered sale deed dated 06.11.1990. The said Smt. L.Nagaratna inturn sold the schedule property in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 10.08.1994. The khatha of the schedule property stands in the name of petitioner and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶30

When the matter stood at that stage respondent No. 2

¶31

issued a notice dated 05.03.1996 under Section 45(1) of the

¶32

Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the schedule property. The petitioner submitted his reply inter alia contending that the notice is untenable and he is not liable to be evicted. By considering the reply submitted by the petitioner respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order –

¶33

¶34

Annexure F holding that the petitioner is in illegal occupation and liable to be evicted. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure F the petitioner filed a statutory appeal in M.A. No. 30/1996 on the file of VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore city. The lower appellate Court under the impugned order dated 13.11.2006 – Annexure H dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by respondent No. 2. Hence, this writ petition.

¶35

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire

¶36

writ papers.

¶37

Respondents contend that the schedule site is a portion of 12 guntas of land in survey No. 22/2b of Valagerehalli village. The respondents contend that they have acquired the land in survey No. 22/2b, passed an award dated 24.09.1993 and had taken possession by issuing a notification under Section 16(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 11.11.1993. The petitioner contends that the schedule property is not part and parcel of survey No. 22/2b. In support of this

¶38

¶39

contention the petitioner has not placed any evidence either before respondent No. 2 or before the lower appellate Court. Further it is seen from the record that the petitioner has not even specified in which survey number the schedule property is situated other than survey No. 22/2b. Therefore the finding in the impugned orders that the schedule property is a part and parcel of survey No. 22/2b acquired by the respondent housing board is supported by evidence on record and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same.

¶40

Secondly it is contended that the schedule property is a vacant site and the same do not fall under the definition ‘premises’ as defined under Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act. The lower appellate Court by considering the definition under Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act rightly held that even vacant land belonging to the respondent Board falls under the definition `premises’. The object of Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act is to evict the unauthorized occupants of the property belonging and vested with the respondent – Housing Board.

¶41

¶42

Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that vacant land do not fit in to the definition of `premises’ under Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act is unacceptable to me. The reasoning of the lower appellate Court in the impugned order is in accordance with law and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on two judgments of this Court in the case of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises Vs. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and others, ILR 2012 Kar. 5474 and in the case of Col. S.P. Anand, Vs. The Competent Officer, Secretary to Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and another, and 2001(6) Kar.L.J. 72 contends that land is different from building. In these two judgments this Court had the occasion to consider the provisions under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. On the other hand in the instant case we are dealing with the provisions under the Karnataka Housing Board Act. The relevant

¶44

¶45

provisions in both the Acts` are different and they are not in para materia. Further the facts in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are entirely different from the facts on hand. Therefore the law declared by this Court in the decisions referred to above will not be of any assistance to advance the case of the petitioner in this case.

¶46

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is hereby

¶47

dismissed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE.

¶49

LRS.

Sri K H Nanjappa Patil v. Karnataka Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K H Nanjappa Patil v. Karnataka Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K R Arun Kumar @ Harish Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Amalachukwu Chinomso Onwukaike Vs State of Karnataka

Jaffar Ahamed @ Jaffar Vs the State of Karnataka

C Nagesh @ Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

Imran Vs State by Cubbon Park P.S.

H.L. Ramesh Vs B. Govinda Bhat