Allowed

Sri M G Gangaiah v. the Commissioner Bbmp

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2022WP/2565/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order keeping a registered municipal katha in abeyance following a fraudulent claim. The court held that the review petition was filed beyond the three-year limitation period specified under the Act, rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the respondent is quashed. Libery is granted to challenge the katha registration in accordance with law.

Sri M G Gangaiah Vs the Commissioner Bbmp — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2565/2021 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M.G. GANGAIAH S/O GANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO 110, RMV 2ND STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, MLA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI N. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶13

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR RANGE, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶15

¶16

M/S. BALAJI DEVELOPERS OFFICE AT OLD NO.139, NEW NO.7, 5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, (OPP. AMSHI INTERNATIONAL INN), BENGALURU-560 009, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, B.R. RANGANATH.

¶17

SMT. GAYATHRI W/O. M.C. ASHWATH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.668, 12TH CROSS, MCR LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI MANMOHN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-L THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AND ALSO THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-H INITIATED BY R-4 AND R-5 BEFORE THE R-2 AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Property bearing Municipal No.4/33/2, measuring 38 guntas, equivalent to 41382 Sft., situated at Srigandhadakavalu Village, Yashwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk was

¶24

¶25

conveyed to the petitioner by executing the registered gift deed dated 30.09.2015. The petitioner submitted an application with the respondent-BBMP to register the subject property in his favour as specified under sub section 3 of Section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The respondentBBMP registered the katha in favour of the petitioner on 7.5.2016.

¶26

The respondents No.4 and 5 claiming that they have purchased the subject property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 15.4.2019, filed an application with the respondentBBMP to register the katha in their favour. The said application was not considered stating that there is a dispute with regard to

¶27

the subject property and the same is pending consideration before the Trial Court.

¶28

The respondents No.4 and 5 after learning that the katha was registered in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property filed the review petition under Section 114-A of the Act, alleging that the katha was obtained fraudulently. The respondent No.2 after holding an enquiry passed the impugned

¶29

¶30

order keeping the katha registered in favour of the petitioner in abeyance till the disposal of the suit pending between the parties, against which, the present petition is filed.

¶31

Mr. D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the review petition under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 was barred by limitation since the same was filed after the limitation period as specified under Section 114 -A of the Act. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1738/2009, disposed of on 28.09.2010.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5 submits that the petitioner had obtained the katha in his favour fraudulently though the petitioner has no right, title over the subject property. Hence, he submits that the respondent No.2 after considering the same in proper perspective has rightly passed an impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶33

¶34

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶35

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶36

The katha was registered in favour of the petitioner on 7.5.2016, the review petition under Section 114-A was filed by the respondents No.4 and 5 on 20.08.2019. Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, reads as under:

¶37

"114-A. Review by the Commissioner.- Where the Commissioner, either suo mou or otherwise, after such enquiry as he considers necessary is satisfied that any transfer of title under Section 114 was got recorded in the Corporation register by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete material, he may within a period of three years from the date of such recording of transfer of title reopen the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit:

¶38

Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person likely to be affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard".

¶39

A perusal of the section 114-A of the Act indicates that, proceedings can be initiated only within a period of three years from the date of such recording of the said transfer.

¶40

¶41

In the present case, proceedings were initiated after

¶42

expiry of the limitation period of three years as specified under Section 114-A of the Act, and the same is one without jurisdiction.

¶43

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

ii) Impugned order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the

¶47

respondent No.2 at Annexure-L is hereby quashed.

¶48

iii) Liberty is granted with the respondents No.4 and 5 to

¶49

challenge the katha registered in favour of the petitioner in

¶50

respect of the subject property in accordance with law.

¶51

All contentions are kept open.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Sri M G Gangaiah v. the Commissioner Bbmp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M G Gangaiah v. the Commissioner Bbmp

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

K a Swathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. A.K. Shivamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Armugachari Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Koluru Eshwaragoud Nagaraj Vs the Commissioner

Sri G Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Honnagangaiah Vs the Commissioner