Disposed

Smt. B. Shyamala @ K.N. Shyamala v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2021WP/45863/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order quashing a khata entry in her favor in favor of a grand-daughter. This Court held that serious factual disputes regarding title preclude decision and directed petitioner to file a civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a civil suit for declaration within 3 months; status quo maintained pending suit; interim stayer continues.

Smt. B. Shyamala @ K.N. Shyamala Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.45863/2013 (LB - BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. B. SHYAMALA @ K.N. SHYAMALA W/O SRI K.N. NEELAKANTA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.2, SRINIVASA NILAYA BEHIND PETROL BUNK YELACHENAHALLI KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 078

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI. ANANTHARAM G.R., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560 076

¶13

2 . THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI ZONE BANGALORE - 560 032

¶14

3 . THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER YALECHANAHALLI WARD

¶15

¶16

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560 078

¶17

4 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ARAKERE SUB-DIVISION BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (B.B.M.P.) 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS ROAD ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 076

¶18

5 . SMT.VASANTHA W/O SRI.M.SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.31, 3RD CROSS, NAGASANDRA,' THAYARAJANAGARA POST, BANGALORE - 560 019

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

[BY SMT. SUMANGALA SIMIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, B.M.P THE R2 HEREIN; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.20.7.13, SAID TO HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE R2, VIDE ANN-N, BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court, has sought for

¶26

the following prayer:

¶27

"a) Call for records in case No.Bru.Bem.MA.Paa./NyaaVya/CR/21 /2013-14 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, B,M.P. the 2^nd respondent herein;

¶28

b) Quash the impugned order dated 20/07/2013 said to have been passed in case No.Bru.Bem.MA.Paa./NyaaVya/CR/21 /2013-14 by the Respondent No.2 vide at Annexure-'N' by issue of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction;

¶29

c) Quash the consequential notice dated 27-09-2013 bearing No.Bru.Bem.MA.Paa./Sakaa.a/A.U.Vi/ PR/57/2013-14 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, the

¶30

¶31

Respondent No.4 herein at Annexure-'P' by issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate order writ or order or direction; and

¶32

d) direct the respondents to restore khatha in the name of the petitioner in the records of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in respect of the schedule property and

¶33

e) Allow the writ petition with costs and

¶34

f) Grant such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

¶35

Heard Sri. Anantharam G.R., learned

¶36

counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Sumangala Simimath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri. Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and have perused the material on record.

¶37

¶38

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

¶39

petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶40

One Muniswamappa and Smt. M. Rathnamma

¶41

were the owners of the property that is the subject matter of the present petition.

¶42

It transpires that Sri. Muniswamappa

¶43

Smt. M. Rathnamma execute a Power of Attorney in favour of Sri. P.K. Mustafa authorising him to sell the properties and other rights as found in the General Power of Attorney.

¶44

It is the claim of the petitioner that on 03.02.1987, Sri. Muniswamappa

¶45

Smt. Rathnamma execute an affidavit for having received the consideration of an amount of Rs.25,000/from Sri. P.K. Mustafa in furtherance of the General Power of Attorney. The Executant of the Power of Attorney, Sri. Muniswamappa dies on 10.10.1995. After which, the petitioner claims who have paid Betterment

¶46

¶47

charges to the City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli with respect to the subject property and has paid taxes through out. Certain tax receipts are produced to buttress the submission that the petitioner is the owner and taxes have been paid diligently. The electricity bills are also placed on record again to demonstrate that all of them are standing in the name of the petitioner with regard to the subject property.

¶48

On 11.07.2006, Sri. P.K. Mustafa, who was

¶49

the holder of the General Power of Attorney, executes a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to which, the petitioner applies seeking change of khata of the subject property into her name. After which, the City Municipal Council on the strength of the sale deed submitted by the petitioner, changed the khata on 19.08.2006 in favour of the petitioner by a ' ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ

¶50

¥ÀvÀ'æ dated 19.08.2006. It is the claim of the petitioner

¶51

¶52

that since the date of khata is changed, again the petitioner has been paying taxes.

¶53

The City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli

¶54

and other City Municipal Councils got merged into the BMP to form a BBMP . It is later the properties were assessed by the BBMP.

¶55

Sri. Muniswamappa had executed a Will in the year 1984 and on the death of Sri. Muniswamappa in terms of the Will, Smt. M. Rathnamma, the daughter became the owner of the property. Smt. M. Rathnamma

¶56

had applied for change of khata in her name and the City Municipal Council, after consideration of the Will, had changed the khata in the name of Smt. M.Rathnamma of the very subject property. Certain proceedings have taken place insofar as it concerns respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 is the grand daughter of Sri.Muniswamappa.

¶57

¶58

Smt. M. Rathnamma executes a Gift Deed in

¶59

favour of the present respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 on the strength of the Gift Deed submitted an application for change of khata into her name. This was accepted and acted upon by the City Municipal Council changing khata in the name of respondent No.5. After the merger of the City Municipal Council into the BMP to become BBMP, respondent No.5 comes to know that the khata of the subject property, which had merged into the precincts of BBMP, had been made over in favour of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the objections against the said act of change of khata in the name of the petitioner.

¶60

The Joint Commissioner, after hearing the

¶61

parties, has passed the impugned order. The impugned order is directing the khata to be changed into the name of respondent No.5 and a consequential notice seeking

¶62

¶63

eviction. It is these two orders that are called in

¶64

question in the subject writ petition.

¶65

The afore-narrated events are the

¶66

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and need not be reiterated. One fact that has to be noticed is that, respondent No.5 had also filed her objections against the change of khata into the name of the petitioner on the strength of a particular sale deed dated 11.07.2006. After which, respondent No.5 files a suit against the present petitioner in O.S.No.7996/2007 seeking injunction against the petitioner in interfering with the property of respondent No.5, which came to be withdrawn later. After withdrawal of the suit, the proceedings are instituted by respondent No.5 before the Joint Commissioner.

¶67

Since serious disputed questions of fact with

¶68

regard to title loom large in the present proceedings, the petitioner, if has to claim the property on the strength of

¶69

¶70

the documents that are claimed, has to get a declaration at the hands of the Civil Court.

¶71

Since the khata is now changed in the name of respondent No.5 and an interim order of stay of eviction of the petitioner is operating in the case at hand, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to agitate her rights. Till such time, the parties to the lis shall maintain status quo with regard to the khata and the nature of the property. There is an interim order of stay granted by this Court in these proceedings on 10.10.2013 and the same is in operation for the last 8 years. Therefore, the interim order so granted by this Court shall continue to be in operation, till the petitioner would file a civil suit and the trial Court would take up the applications, if any, filed by the petitioner seeking suitable orders to protect her right or possession.

¶72

¶73

The petitioner shall file the civil suit within

¶74

an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if an application is filed, the trial Court at the outset shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the parties to maintain status quo and the interim order granted in the subject writ petition be continued. In the event, the petitioner would not exercise her liberty of filing the suit, the interim order continued would stand vacated.

¶75

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

SJK

Smt. B. Shyamala @ K.N. Shyamala v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B. Shyamala @ K.N. Shyamala v. the Commissioner

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

Satish R Shet Vs State of Karnataka by

S R Patalappa Vs the State by

Smt Kursheed Unnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ilyas Ahmed Vs Deputy Commissioner

L Anand Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Smt Qurrath Ravoof Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike