Allowed

Sri. Manukumar D.G., v. Municipal Commissioner City

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023WP/23376/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that pending appeals in other tribunals do not warrant a stay on katha transfer where a sale certificate has already issued. The petition was allowed to quash an endorsement blocking transfer and directed expeditious processing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned endorsement quashed; direction to transfer katha within two months.

Sri. Manukumar D.G., Vs Municipal Commissioner City — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23202 WP No. 23376 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 23376 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANUKUMAR D.G., S/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, #8, I CROSS, I MAIN, HEBBAL MAIN ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, MYSORE.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAKESH B BHATT AND SRI.ADITYA S.N., ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOOTAGALLI,

¶14

MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 018.

¶15

SRINIVAS REDDY, S/O LATE NARAYAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, NO.89, 4^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, GOKULAM 3^RD STAGE, MYSURU – 570 012.

¶16

TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OP. BANK LTD.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:23202 WP No. 23376 of 2022

¶19

B H ROAD, TUMAKUR – 572 103. REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶20

M.S.KRISHNA KUMAR,

¶21

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.89, 4^TH CROSS, GOKULAM, 3^RD STAGE, MYSORE, VANI VILAS MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 002.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.H.E.BASAVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4; SRI.LOKESH K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-1 BEARING NO.NA SA HU. SIBBANDI.C.R-09/2022-23 DATED 06.06.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶28

The writ petitioner having purchased the land in question in a public auction conducted by respondent No.3-Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Limited, are before this Court aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 06.06.2022 at

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:23202 WP No. 23376 of 2022

¶31

Annexure-A given by the Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, Hootagalli, Mysuru District.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Annexures-G and G1 which are the sale certificates registered before the jurisdictional SubRegistrar on 18.02.2022. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner having participated in the public auction and having been declared as the successful bidder, paid the bid amount and after fulfillment of all the conditions, the sale was confirmed and the sale certificates were issued in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 and the newly impleaded respondent No.4 claim to be the previous owners of the property. They have sought to raise an objection before the Commissioner of the City Municipal Council for the application

¶33

made by the petitioner seeking the transfer of katha. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 brought to the notice of the Commissioner that they had filed writ petition Nos.2402/2022 and 8159/2022, and since the matters were pending consideration, the katha should not be transferred in favour of the petitioner. Accepting the contentions of respondent Nos.2

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23202 WP No. 23376 of 2022

¶35

and 4, the impugned endorsement has been issued by the Commissioner.

¶36

During the course of these proceedings, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 4 have also approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, calling in question, the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is therefore sought to be contended that since the appeals have been preferred before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the katha should not be transferred in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the petitioner has got the sale certificate executed at the hands of respondent No.3-Bank. In terms of the registered instrument, the title having passed on the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to have the katha registered in his name in the office of the respondent-City Municipal Council. Admittedly, there is no order of stay passed by this Court in the writ petitions that were earlier filed by respondent Nos.2 and 4, nor by the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 4 cannot

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23202 WP No. 23376 of 2022

¶39

cause an obstruction to the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of katha. On the other hand, if respondent Nos.2 and 4 succeed before the Appellate Tribunal and the sale certificates issued in favour of the petitioner is set aside by any Court of law or tribunal, respondent Nos.2 and 4 will be entitled to seek cancellation of the katha and have their names are reentered in the katha register.

¶40

For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsement dated 06.06.2022 at Annexure-A, issued by Commissioner respondent-City Municipal Council, Hootagalli, cannot be sustained.

¶41

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 06.06.2022 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Hootagalli, to pass necessary orders on the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of katha on the strength of the registered sale certificates at Annexures-G and G1. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:23202 WP No. 23376 of 2022

¶43

¶44

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Ordered accordingly.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sri. Manukumar D.G., v. Municipal Commissioner City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manukumar D.G., v. Municipal Commissioner City

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

M/S Snn Abode LLP Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Prachar Outdoor Advertising Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Pooja Marketing Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh Vs M/S Siddharta Resorts and Foods

Sri B Madhusudan Rao Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Giridhar Vs M/S. Sowparnika Projects and