Dismissed

Smt. Shrimati Dharmapal Shetty v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2023WP/1295/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India concerning alleged illegal registration of katha. The Bench held that there was no evidence of an application filed for registration or an order rejecting such an application, making the writ prayer inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is directed to avail of the appeal remedy under Section 150 of the Act.

Smt. Shrimati Dharmapal Shetty Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24241 WP No. 1295 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1295 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SHRIMATI DHARMAPAL SHETTY, W/O DHARMAPAL SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶8

REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER,

¶9

SRI. SHRIDHAR ALVA BELLOR, S/O SHIVARAM ALVA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT: 391, 9TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, NEAR BDA COMPLEX, NAGARBHAVI, ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, CORPORATON, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶15

THE ADMINISTRATOR, BBMP, CORPORATION, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:24241 WP No. 1295 of 2023

¶18

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRAR AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP (WARD NO. 40), HEROHALLI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R, AGA FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.09.2020, 21.09.2020 AND 02.03.2022 OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-A, B, C, D AND E WITHIN SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDRS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶26

The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondentCommissioner, BBMP, to consider the various representations given by the petitioner and her previous vendor, from whom the petitioner has purchased the property in question. It is stated in the representations that three persons named therein

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24241 WP No. 1295 of 2023

¶28

have illegally got the katha registered in their names or that they have forged the katha.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP submits that if the petitioner is seeking registration of the katha in her name, then materials have been placed before this Court to show that such an application was made, but no such material is available.

¶30

Nonetheless, if such an application is rejected, provision is available in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 150 of the Act. However, what is stated in the complaint does not disclose any such situation where the petitioner appears to have filed an application seeking transfer of katha or that her name was already entered in the katha register and thereafter, removed illegally.

¶31

Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP, this Court is satisfied that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. If the petitioner is aggrieved of any action of any of the

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:24241 WP No. 1295 of 2023

¶33

¶34

authorities of the BBMP in removing the petitioner's name from the katha register, then the petitioner is required to avail of the appeal remedy or review remedy available under Section 150 of the Act.

¶35

Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent authority to redress her grievance.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

¶38

CT: BHK

Smt. Shrimati Dharmapal Shetty v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shrimati Dharmapal Shetty 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

Mohammed Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Shabbir Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

M M Ibrahim Vs the Commissioner

Sri Madesha Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt Prema Vs Smt . Jaya

M/S Pjb Engineers Private Limited Vs the Commissioner