Quashed

Smt Anni Saldanha v. the Additional Commissioner East

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/22484/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata dispute over a Bengaluru property between the widow/mother of the deceased owner and BBMP officials. With a partition suit decree now settling shares, the court quashed the Additional Commissioner's order and allowed parties to seek khata change per that decree.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.04.2017 quashed; parties free to seek change of khata per O.S.No.17613/2005 decree dated 15.03.2022.

Smt Anni Saldanha Vs the Additional Commissioner East — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20621 WP No. 22484 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 22484 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT ANNI SALDANHA W/O. LATE. J F SALDANHA SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LR’S

¶9

1(a) RITA SALDHANA D/O LATE J F SALDANHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

1(b) FLORINE ‘D’ SOUZA W/O GILBERT ‘D’ SOUZA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.707-A 1^ST FLOOR, 12^TH CROSS 8^TH MAIN, VINAYAKANAGAR KONENA AGRAHARA, HAL POST BENGALURU-560 017.

¶12

Digitally signed by BENGALURU-560 017. HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SHIVA KUMAR K B.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER EAST BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAYO HALL, BANGALORE 560002.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER JEEVANBHIMA NAGAR SUB DIVISION

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:20621 WP No. 22484 of 2017

¶19

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560002.

¶20

SMT. E P SUBHADRA W/O. LATE. R A SALDANHA, NO. 707-A, 1ST FLOOR 12TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN VINAYAKANAGAR, KONENA AGRAHARA HAL POST, BENGALURU 560017.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: SRI.D.G. CHINNAPPA GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-1 VIDE ANENNXURE-A DATED:13.4.2017 PASSED BY R-1. DIRECT THE R-2 NOT TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE REGISTERS OF THE KHATA TILL THE ADJUDICATION OF TITLE WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY IN O.S.NO.17613/2005 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-H DATED:16.11.2005 AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A by exercising the power under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20621 WP No. 22484 of 2017

¶28

Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that R.A.Saldanha purchased the residential property in dispute bearing Old No.707-A, New No.7/A, 12^th Cross, 8^th Main, Vinayaka Nagara, ‘B’ Block, HAL Post, Konena Agrahara, Ward No.113, PID No.73-117-7/A, Bengaluru from one Iqbal Ahmed by registered Sale Deed dated 14.08.2001. Accordingly, the khatha of the scheduled property has been transferred in the name of R.A.Saldanha. R.A.Saldanha died on 22.04.2005. Thereafter, khatha was transferred in the names of his wife Smt.E.P.Subhadra, who is respondent No.3 herein and his mother-Anni

¶29

Saldanha, who is the original petitioner herein. Respondent No.3, who is the wife of Late R.A.Saldanha has filed an application before respondent No.2 contending that the joint entry in the khatha in her name and the name of petitioner, is not correct since she is the legally wedded wife of Late R.A.Saldanha and hence she is entitled for entire property in dispute. On the basis of the application filed by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 has

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20621 WP No. 22484 of 2017

¶31

passed the impugned order vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a memo enclosing the copy of the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2022 passed by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.17613/2005 (filed for partition). In the said judgment and decree, the share of the petitioner and respondent No.3 has been decided by the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order dated 13.04.2017 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A, requires to be quashed reserving liberty to the parties to seek for change of khatha.

¶33

In view of the above, I pass the following order:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

a) The writ petition is allowed .

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20621 WP No. 22484 of 2017

¶37

b) The impugned order dated 13.04.2017 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶38

c) The parties are at liberty to approach the competent authority to seek for change of khatha in terms of the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2022 passed by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.17613/2005.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Smt Anni Saldanha v. the Additional Commissioner East

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anni Saldanha v. the Additional Commissioner East

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 Umaswamy Vs Bruhath Bangalroe Mahanagara Palike

Log 9 Materials Scientific Private Limited Vs Teamlease Services Limited

Sri. P.R. Chandramouli Vs City Municipal Council

Smt S Padvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T v Sreenivas Vs the Executive Officer

Minal Morajaria Vs the State of Karnataka