Allowed

Sri. R. Ranganath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/11077/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This quota concerns issuance of khata certificate in favour of Respondent No. 8 for the property bearing Sy.No.19. This Court held that transfer of khata without issuing prior notice to original holders violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted to the BBMP to issue notice and hear parties before passing final orders, preserving demolition stay.

What did the court decide?

The khata certificate dated 01.03.2013 issued in favour of Respondent No. 8 was quashed; the matter was remitted to BBMP to issue notices, hear parties, and summon documents within six months.

Sri. R. Ranganath Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.11077/2013 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI R. RANGANATH S/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS HOUSE NO.24A

¶8

SRI R CHIKKANNA S/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS HOUSE NO.23A

¶9

SRI KRISHNA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS HOUSE NO.10A

¶10

SMT. KANTHA W/O N .UMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS HOUSE NO.19A.

¶11

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS HOUSE NO.21A.

¶12

SMT. CHELLAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶13

¶14

HOUSE NO.22A.

¶15

SRI N.KUMAR S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HOUSE NO.14A.

¶16

SMT.RAMAKKA W/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HOUSE NO.33A.

¶17

SMT.SHIVAGAMI W/O LATE SOUNDAR RAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS HOUSE NO.41A.

¶18

SMT. ANJILAMMA W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HOUSE NO.3A.

¶19

SMT. MALLIGA W/O LATE RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS HOUSE NO.42A.

¶20

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE ACCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS HOUSE NO.39A.

¶21

13 SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HOUSE NO.25A.

¶22

SRI M.RAJANNA S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶23

¶24

HOUSE NO.37A.

¶25

SRI K.SAMPANGI S/O LATE KANNAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HOUSE NO.29A.

¶26

SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE KANNAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HOUSE NO.26A.

¶27

SRI MUNISWAMY S/O LATE K.MUTTHU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS HOUSE NO.53A.

¶28

SMT.NARASAMMA W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HOUSE NO.47A.

¶29

SRI GOPAL S/O PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HOUSE NO.28A.

¶30

SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENKATARAMU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HOUSE NO.17A.

¶31

SRI M.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HOUSE NO.40A.

¶32

SMT. LALITHA W/O VEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶33

¶34

HOUSE NO.9A.

¶35

SRI R.VENKATESH S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS HOUSE NO.52A.

¶36

SRI R.PARAMASHIVA S/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS HOUSE NO.13A.

¶37

SMT.K.V.DRAKSHAYANI W/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS HOUSE NO.1A. ALL ARE RESIDING AT 1^ST CROSS, 5^TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. ... PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶39

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶40

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶41

¶42

VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶43

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶44

THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶45

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE CITY8 POLICE INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE 560 BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶46

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA DIVISION BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶47

SRI M.C.RAJANNA AGE MAJOR R/AT NEW NO.5/2, 5^TH MAIN ROAD SAMPANGIRAMNAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶48

... RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI K.R.NITHYANANDA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 & R6; SRI D.VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R7)

¶50

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM RESPONDENT NO.8 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.19 MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 11 GUNTAS, WARD NO.110, SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR, BANGALORE; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO IMPLEMENT, PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES TO THE PETITIONERS UNDER WELFARE

¶51

¶52

SCHEME PROMOTED BY UNION & STATE SO AS TO HAVE BETTER HYGIENIC AND IMPROVED LIVING CONDITIONS AND ETC.,

¶53

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question issuance of khata certificate in favour of respondent No.8 on 01.03.2013, by the respondents.

¶56

Heard Sri M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri K.R.Nithyananda, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6, Sri D. Venu Gopal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 7.

¶57

All the petitioners claiming to be residents of erstwhile Sampigehalli presently called as Sampangiram Nagar, which comes within ward No.110 of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BBMP’ for short). The petitioners and their ancestors came to be dwelling in the

¶58

¶59

houses that are situated in Sampangiram Nagar for about 60 years now. The petitioners came in possession of the aforesaid properties pursuant to a gazette notification issued by the Government in the Department of Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Board) (heareinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short). In terms of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973.

¶60

The names of the petitioners are found in the statement, showing the list of slums where basic amenities and benefits under various schemes are provided in the City of Bengaluru and the petitioners are also getting those benefits through the Board. Pursuant to the petitioners coming into possession of the said properties as indicated hereinabove, the BBMP has also issued certain Khata certificates which would read as ‘holder Khata’ and those khatas are given to each one of the petitioners, which is appended to the writ petition as annexure ‘H’ series. The claim of the petitioners is that, it is not from the dates, the khatas were issued but the petitioners are in possession of

¶61

¶62

certain certificates - Hakku Pathras which are issued by the competent authority on the strength of them residing in the dwelling houses in Sampangiram Nagar.

¶63

Things standing thus, the petitioners claim that one Sri M.C.Rajanna, respondent No.8 herein interfered with the peaceful possession and the stay of the petitioners in the houses that were allotted to them and also secured khata from the hands of the BBMP on 01.03.2013. After the khata transferred in his name and on its strength, interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and even went to an extent of demolishing the properties of the petitioners with the support of BBMP at that point in time, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court in the present writ petition.

¶64

The petition was entertained and this Court granted an interim order of stay by an order dated 05.03.2013 and the same is in operation even as on date.

¶65

¶66

Sri M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that despite the fact that the petitioners were staying in those properties from times immemorial and khata certificates are also being issued in their favour after allotment depicting it to be a holder khata, the petitioners are not heard in the matter prior to cancelling of khatas and depicting the name of respondent No.8 in Khata certificate.

¶67

On the other hand, Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7 admits the fact that the notices were not issued to the petitioners but would submit that the issue of change of Khata came about only when the wife of respondent No.8 submitted an application for change of khata and would submit that the khata had to be issued in favour of respondent No.8 as he has produced the decree of the Civil Court passed in O.S.No. 549/1983, declaring respondent No.8 to be the owner of the property and certain proceedings taken up before the Deputy Commissioner in and in terms of 27.8.2002.

¶68

¶69

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

¶70

The facts afore- narrated which are not in dispute, need not be reiterated. The petitioners did come into possession of their properties on the strength of a notification issued by the then Slum Clearance Board / Board in the areas in which the petitioners are residing. The ‘holder Khata’ was issued by the BBMP in favour of the petitioners and certain documents which would depict same semblance of ownership on the part of the petitioners was also issued by the board. Khata certificates were also issued by the BBMP between the years, 2007 – 2012, in favour of the petitioners which is not for the first time issued but in continuance of khata in favour of the petitioners. Issuance of Khata would not render any title to any of the party claiming ownership of the property. Nonetheless, it is the right of a person in whose name the khata certificate is issued.

¶71

¶72

Admittedly, the khata certificates were issued in favour of the petitioners, be it a holder khata or otherwise, the same could not have been cancelled and the khata could not have been changed in favour of the respondent No.8 - M.C.Rajanna, without at the outset issuing any notice to the petitioners. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner sounds acceptance only insofar as it concerns violation of principles of natural justice, while effecting change of khata.

¶73

Therefore, on the short ground that the petitioners were not heard in the matter prior to the change of khata, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the hands of the BBMP to issue notice to the petitioners, hear them and summon all those documents that the petitioners are in possession of which would demonstrate that they are in lawfull possession of the said properties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is also made clear that while passing the orders, the respondents - competent authority shall hear all the affected parties, in the matter.

¶74

¶75

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i. The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶78

ii. The khata certificate issued on 01.03.2013, in

¶79

favour of respondent No.8 stands quashed.

¶80

iii. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the BBMP to issue notice to the petitioners as to why khatas that stood in the names of the petitioners should not be cancelled, hear all parties and summon all those documents that are needed from the hands of the petitioners and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶81

iv. The said action shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it is made clear, till such time no action

¶82

¶83

shall be taken against the petitioners for demolition of the properties or otherwise.

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

nvj CT:MJ

Sri. R. Ranganath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. R. Ranganath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemalatha N Vs the State of Karnataka

R Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka by

Haji Suleman Vs State of Karnataka

Malik Nisaruddin Vs the Director of Municipal Administration

Bhagyamma G N Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Commissioner