Partly allowed

Sri. Chandrakanth @ Chandrappa v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2023WP/672/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged a requisition for a release deed from legal heirs. The court disposed of the petition, allowing it time to submit an indemnity bond in the prescribed format for further consideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh representation with an indemnity bond in prescribed format within two weeks; respondent directed to pass orders within six weeks.

Sri. Chandrakanth @ Chandrappa Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35975 WP No. 672 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 672 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. CHANDRAKANTH @ CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO. 406, 2ND "D" MAIN ROAD KASTHURI NAGAR CHANNASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT.THANUJA M V.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, SANKEY ROAD BENGALURU 560 020.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. N.R. GIRISH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.11.2021 AT ANNEXURE-L NO.BEM.A.PRA/UKAA-4/MAHITHI HAKKU/3599/22-23 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:35975 WP No. 672 of 2023

¶20

NO.155, 1ST BLOCK, 1ST STATE, HENNUR-BALLERY ROAD, MEASURING 6.09X9.14 I.E.,55.67 METERS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BDA AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Smt. Thanuja M.V, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.N.R.Girish, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that his father one Sri. Hanumanthappa had been allotted a site bearing No.155 in the 1st Block, 1st Stage of Hennur-Ballery road, measuring 6.09 X 9.14 meters in terms of a Letter of Allotment dated 22.12.1988 by the respondent -BDA. That a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement on 02.05.1990 had been executed in favour of said Hanumanthappa. The possession of the property had been handed over in terms of Possession Certificate dated 05.07.1990 and Katha in respect of said property had also been issued by the respondent-BDA in favour of said Hanumanthappa.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:35975 WP No. 672 of 2023

¶27

That Hanumanthappa died intestate on

¶28

22.08.1991 leaving behind his children as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. That the petitioner on 06.12.2018 had given a representation with all documents to the respondent-BDA to transfer/execute the sale deed in respect of the said property in his favour. In response, the respondent-BDA had issued a notice on 25.11.2020 calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents. Accordingly, petitioner submitted documents in the nature of affidavits, joint affidavits of all legal heirs of late Hanumanthappa, Indemnity Bond etc., That despite submitting the aforesaid documents, respondent-BDA has not taken any action. As such, once again on 08.10.2021 the petitioner had made another representation with all necessary documents to the respondent-BDA. In response, an endorsement dated 23.11.2021 was issued by the respondent-BDA as per Annexure-L calling upon the petitioner to obtain a deed of release from other legal heirs of deceased Hanumanthappa enabling the respondent-BDA to execute deed of sale in his favour.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:35975 WP No. 672 of 2023

¶31

Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the respondent-BDA cannot call upon the petitioner to produce release deed from other legal heirs of Hanumanthappa as the said stage is pre-mature. Drawing attention of this Court to the indemnity bond produced at Annexure-J3 of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all legal heirs of late Hanumanthappa have indeed given a declaration and undertaking to indemnify. She further submits that the said document is sufficient enough for the respondent-BDA to act upon and execute the deed of sale in favour of petitioner.

¶33

In response, learned counsel for the

¶34

respondent-BDA submits that Annexure-J3 is in the nature

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:35975 WP No. 672 of 2023

¶37

of declaration and the same cannot be termed as an indemnity bond in its strict sense.

¶38

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits liberty be reserved to the petitioner to submit a fresh indemnity bond in a prescribed format as required by the respondent-BDA.

¶39

Considering such submission, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that if petitioner submit an indemnity bond in a prescribed format, requisition of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law.

¶40

In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all necessary documents, more particularly, an indemnity bond in a prescribed format as required by the respondent-BDA within two weeks from

¶41

the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and on submission of such representation along with required documents, respondent-BDA shall consider the same and

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:35975 WP No. 672 of 2023

¶44

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of submission of

¶45

such representation.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sri. Chandrakanth @ Chandrappa v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrakanth @ Chandrappa 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

Sri. Krishnappa Vs Union of India

Sri Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Papanna Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Fashion Power Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Devika Vs the Commissioner

Smt Rekha H Vs the Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority