Allowed

K Nirmala v. The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022WP/4141/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed to quash an appeal order that set aside a property Katha. Noting an amicable settlement between the respondent property owner and the original buyer, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to register the property in the petitioner Shivan's name.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of the appeal order dated 06.12.2018 and direction to the Commissioner to register the property Katha in favour of Petitioner No.2 within four weeks.

K Nirmala Vs The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4141/2020 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. K. NIRMALA W/O NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.171, 2ND CROSS E-BLOCK, B.D.A. LAYOUT LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560 084 (SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)

¶8

SRI SHIVANNA S.R S/O RAMABOVI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT SANTHENAHALLI VILLAGE K.R. PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-577133.

¶9

(R-2 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 30.05.2022)

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI VINOD C.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE NO.LG-34, SAMPIGE ROAD JAI BHEEMA NAGAR, MALLESWARAM WEST BENGALURU-560 003.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, IPP CENTRE, 16TH CROSS OPP. TO CHOWDAIAH MEMORIAL HALL KODANDARAMAPURA, VYALIKAVAL BENGALURU-560 003.

¶17

SMT. GAYATHRI, MAJOR W/O VENKATESH NO.806/57, 11TH CROSS MALLESWARAM, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI ARUN A. GADAG, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST) R-2, IN APPEAL NO.05/2018-19 DATED 06.12.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-P; DIRECT THE R-2 TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS 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

The Katha was registered in the name of the petitioner No.1 in respect of the property bearing No.40/1 (old No.806/40)

¶24

¶25

situated at 11th Cross, Malleshwaram, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru Ward No.5, Kodhandaramapuram, Bengaluru-560 003 measuring East to West 25 feet and North to South 13.6 feet. Petitioner No.1 sold the subject property to respondent No.2 vide sale deed dated 4.3.2017.

¶26

Respondent No.4 challenged the Katha registered in favour of the petitioner No.1 by filing an appeal under section 114 A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The appeal came to be allowed and the katha registered in favour of the petitioner No.1 was set aside against which the present petition is filed.

¶27

Petitioner No.1 died during the pendency of this writ petition. Petitioner No.2 who acquired the title over the property by virtue of the registered sale deed amicably resolved the dispute with the respondent No.4 and the parties are present before this Court and have filed a joint memo stating that the dispute is amicably settled between them and the respondent No.4 has no objections for registering the Katha in favour of the petitioner No.2 in respect of the subject property subject to the

¶28

¶29

petitioner No.2 re-conveying the subject property in favour of the respondent No.4.

¶30

Memo of settlement filed by the petitioner No.2 and the respondent No.4 is placed on record.

¶31

In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the impugned order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.05/2018-19 vide Annexure-P is hereby quashed.

¶32

Respondents-BBMP are hereby directed to register the katha in favour of the petitioner No.2 in respect of the subject property, in view of the settlement arrived between the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4. The said excise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

K Nirmala v. The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Nirmala v. The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

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

Smt.K.Parijatha Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt. M.S. Rajeshwari Vs the Joint Commissioner

M/S P M J Constructions Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Saarvajanika Shree Ganeshotsava Samithi (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

K Ravishankar Vs M Krishnappa

Honnaraju Vs the State of Karnataka