Disposed

Sri. T. Venkateshwara Rao v. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2023WP/5281/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a katha application. The court found the rejection justified due to respondent's possession and pending suit, noting no infirmity warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty reserved to approach corporation for fresh katha if successful in pending suit.

Sri. T. Venkateshwara Rao Vs Bruhath Bangalore… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5281 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5281 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. T. VENKATESHWARA RAO S/O T HARIHARA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.7, MODEL LIC COLONY, BASAWESHWARA NAGARA, BANGALORE-560079

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NITYANANDA S.G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHAITANYA S G.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶14

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE, BANGALORE-560 098

¶15

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER LAGGERE SUB DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE BANGALORE-560 098

¶16

SMT T SHASHIKALA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O NO.10, 1^ST CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, HAVANURU EXTENSION,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 5281 of 2017

¶19

HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 057

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. N.R. JAGADESWARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4-SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-V PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/5/2016 BEARING NO. JUM.AA/RARANAVA/GL:2022/2014-2015 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶26

following reliefs:

¶27

a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the impugned order at Annexure-V passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 16/5/2016 bearing No. JUM.AA/RARANAVA/GL:2022/2014-2015.

¶28

b. Grant such other and further reliefs that this Hon’ble Authority deems fit in the circumstances of the case, including the costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of katha in the name of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 16.5.2016 at Annexure-B. The contention of the petitioner is

¶30

¶31

WP No. 5281 of 2017

¶32

that, though they are two sale deeds in respect of same property the sale deed of the petitioner is earlier in point of time that in favour of respondent No.4 is later and as such same ought to have been considered by the respondent No.2 while considering the application filed for issuance of katha.

¶33

A perusal of the impugned Annexure-B indicates that a site inspection was carried out and at that time it is respondent No.4 who was found to be in the possession of the property taking this aspect into account as also pendency of the suit in OS No.10020/2015, the application of the petitioner was rejected subject of the result of the said suit.

¶34

In view of the said reservation, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity requiring this Court to interfere. Hence, I pass the following;

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. The writ petition is disposed.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 5281 of 2017

¶39

ii. Liberty is however reserved to the petitioner to approach the corporation for issuance of fresh katha in the event of being successful in OS No.10020/2015.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sri. T. Venkateshwara Rao v. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. T. Venkateshwara Rao v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Equity Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Sri. B.K. Ananda Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Smt. B P Susheelamma Vs the State of Karnataka

S R Amaresh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.S.P.Anne Gowda Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Venkateshaiah @ G. Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka