Disposed

M.M.Anandaram v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2024WP/23365/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BBMP challenged Tribunal and Regional Commissioner orders refusing to alter city survey entries over a Bengaluru property, contending disputed title required a civil suit. A co-owner sought removal of BBMP's claim from his property's records. The court disposed of both, directing removal of the references.

What did the court decide?

BBMP directed to remove references to its claim from the seventh respondent's revenue entries; Assistant Revenue Officer to comply within eight weeks of certified copy.

M.M.Anandaram Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23365 OF 2022 (LB-BMP) C/W

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 19187 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶7

IN WP No. 23365/2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M.M.ANANDARAM AGED ABOUT 96 YEARS S/IO LT MANJUNATHA SETTY NO 15, PAPAMAKAVI ROAD SHANKARAPURAM BANGALORE 560004

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. B R VISWANATH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE 560001 REP BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REVENUE

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶15

SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA C T., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REMOVE THE ENTRIES MADE BY OF THE RESPONDENT IN KATHA REGISTERS AND SUCH OTHER REVENUE DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHER CO-OWNERS I.E., PROPERTY BEARING CTS NO.815, BBMP OLD PID NOS.61-11-59 AND 61-55185RASHTREEYA VIDYALAYA ROAD, WARD NO.143, BANGALORE.TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY RS.5 CRORES TOWARDS DAMAGES.

¶19

IN WP NO. 19187/2021

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶24

SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA C T.,ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION BMTC BUILDING K H ROD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027

¶27

SRI T RANGANATH RESIDING AT NO.58, MAVALLI MAIN ROAD,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶30

CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560004

¶31

SMT NAGARATHNAMMA RESIDING AT NO.58, MAVALLI MAIN ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560004

¶32

3A. SMT SAVITHRAMMA RESIDING AT NO.58, MAVALLI MAIN ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560004

¶33

SRI S RAJU S/O B G SUBRAMANYAM AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.15/4-1 S K LANE, CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560004

¶34

SRI B S SATHYENDRA S/O B G SUBRAMANYA AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.15/4-1 S K LANE, CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560004

¶35

SRI. B.S.BALACHANDRA S/O B. G. SUBRAMANYAM RESIDING AT NO.15/4-1 S K LANE, CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560004

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶38

SRI M M ANANDRAMA RESIDING AT NO.15 PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560094

¶39

SRI RAGHAVENDRA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED MAJOR NO.413, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS DOLLARS COLONY RMV 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560094

¶40

SRI R GOVARDHANA BABU S/O UNKNOWN AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.27/1 GOLLARA OBALAPPA CROSS, CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560004

¶41

SMT R RAJALAKSHMI W/O RAMAKRISHNA SETTY AGED MAJOR NO.6/6, EAST CIRCLE ROAD, V V PURAM BENGALURU-560004

¶42

SRI A A DEEPAK

¶43

S/O UNKNOWN AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.5, 3RD MAIN ROD VYALIKAVAL BENGALURU-560003

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶45

SRI M SUBRAPRABHA S/O UNKNOWN AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT 1ST STAGE INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560038

¶46

SRI SATHYANARAYANA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.413, 5TH MAIN ROAD 10TH CROSS, DOLLARS COLONY RMV II STAGE BENGALURU-560094

¶47

SRI M M ANANDARAMU S/O UNKNOWN AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.50 PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560004

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1;

¶50

SRI. B. C. CHETHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R10 AND R12; SRI. B.M.ARUN, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. B. R. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R14; R11 SERVED)

¶51

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE

¶52

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶53

ORDER/JUDGEMENT DATED 28.02.2019 IN APPEAL NO.962/2013 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU, ANNEXURE-A.

¶54

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶56

ORAL ORDER

¶57

The petitioner in W.P.No.19187/2021 is the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP], and it has filed this petition calling in question the order dated 28.02.2019 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal '] in Appeal No.962/2013. The other petition in W.P.No.23365/2022 is by one of the respondents in the first petition [ the seventh respondent ], and this respondent is aggrieved because the reference to the proceedings in Appeal No.962/2013 is continued in the revenue entries for his property. This respondent asserts ownership and possession of an extent

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶59

measuring 10,212.5 per Sq. Ft. in the property bearing No.185, R.V. Road, Mavalli, Bengaluru.

¶60

The dispute leading to the Tribunal's impugned order dated 28.02.2019 commences with the order dated 30.07.2002 by the Joint Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Division. The Joint Director has set aside certain entries for certain properties [including the entry for the foresaid property] in the city survey records in favour of the private respondents opining that such entries must be in favour of the BBMP. These private respondents have called this order dated 30.07.2002 in question in W.P.Nos.18609/2004 and 34256/2002. These writ petitions are disposed of on 20.08.2004 quashing the order dated 30.07.2002, but with certain observation and liberty. This Court's order in these regards reads as under:

¶61

……….. In the Government order referred to supra upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel on behalf of Mahanagara

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶64

Palika, not doubt at Sl.No.57, there is a reference with regard to the grant of land bearing Sy.No.11 of Mavalli village in favour of the erstwhile Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, which has been subsequently incorporated as City Corporation. However, there is no mention with regard to the extent of land granted in its favour with the description of boundaries. Therefore, what is the total extent of land granted in its and whether the said extent of land in respect of which katha has been made in favour of the petitioners by the concerned competent Authority is one and the same or not could not have been decided by the first respondent as the identity of the property in question is in serious dispute and unless the parties produce the title documents before the competent Civil. Court and get their rights declared in a proper original suit filed by it. Further, the identity of the property in question has to be ascertained by it by producing legal evidence before the competent Civil Court.

¶65

AND

¶66

With the above observation and liberty given to the Mahanagara Palike, these writ petitions are allowed. Issue Rule in W.P.No.18609/04. Rule is made absolute in the connected writ petition. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is hereby quashed. All the legal

¶67

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶68

contentions urged on behalf of Mahanagara Palike are left open to be urged in proceedings that can be initiated under Sec. 178 (A) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act of 1976 including the original suit proceedings that may be initiated by the Mahanagara Palike."

¶69

This Court, while observing that the identity of the property as claimed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP] is in serious dispute, has opined that unless the parties produce title documents before the competent civil Court and get their rights declared in a proper original suit, the BBMP cannot assert any interest in the subject property.

¶70

After this order, the BBMP has approached the Regional Commissioner under Section 178(A) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 [for short, ' the KMC Act '] in M.U.N(1)CR/53/2004-05. The Regional Commissioner, by the order dated 22.01.2010, has refused to interfere with the entries in favour of the

¶71

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶72

private respondent opining that the disputed question of title to the subject property must be decided in a properly instituted suit as observed by this Court in the above said Order. The BBMP has approached the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has also reiterated the same by the order impugned in W.P.No.19187/2021.

¶73

Sri. D. R. Vishwanath, and Sri. B. C.

¶74

Chethan, the learned counsels for the private respondents, submit that the BBMP should have filed a proper suit for declaration of title but has filed proceedings under Section 178(A) of the KMC Act, and therefore, take the consequences that ensue viz, the loss of cause to file a civil suit. Sri. Vikram Huilgol, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.19187/2021, while not disputing the import of the observation, submits that no exception can be taken with the BBMP availing the remedy

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶77

under Section 178(A) of the KMC Act in view of the express liberty reserved by this Court.

¶78

However, Sri. Vikram Huilgol cannot

¶79

emphasize any circumstance that would justify interference with the orders by the Regional Commissioner or the Tribunal that the disputed questions of title over the subject property must be decided in a civil suit. The learned Senior Counsel, responding to the submissions by Sri. B. R. Vishwanath and Sri. B. C. Chetan that the BBMP has lost its rights with lapse of time to even avail the remedy before the competent civil Court, submits that this is an aspect that should be considered as and when the BBMP avails the remedy and that an opinion at this stage would only foreclose a remedy to file a civil suit despite overwhelming circumstances.

¶80

The rival submissions are considered, and this Court must opine that the crucial question for consideration is whether the writ petition in

¶81

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶82

WP.No.19187/2021 must be disposed of opining that the BBMP has lost its right to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court, given the totality of the Circumstances, is of the considered view that this question must be considered by the civil Court as and when the BBMP institutes the suit and there cannot be any observation in the light of the proceedings that are pursued after this Court's order dated 20.08.2004.

¶83

As regards the question raised in W.P.No.23365/2022, this Court must opine that the reference to the BBMP's claim or the proceedings under Section 178(A) of the KMC Act in the BBMP’s Register will be totally unjustified with the closure of the present proceedings and the BBMP not invoking the liberty that is granted so far. The remarks in the BBMP’s Registers about its title/interest in the seventh respondent’s property must be taken out,

¶84

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶85

and the petitioner given the benefits without such remarks unless the same is vindicated in properly instituted proceedings. In the light of the afore, the petitions stand disposed of by this Order:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

a. The BBMP is directed to remove all

¶88

references to its claim in the revenue entries of the seventh respondent - Sri.

¶89

M.M. Anandrama ’s property.

¶90

b. The seventh respondent will be at liberty to file a certified copy of this order, within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt thereof, with the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer.

¶91

c. The jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer shall ensure that the reference to the BBMP's claim is taken out in the Register within eight [8] weeks from the

¶92

NC: 2024:KHC:48564 WP No. 23365 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19187 of 2021

¶93

14 -

¶94

date of receipt of a certified copy of this

¶95

order.

¶96

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶97

M.M.Anandaram v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Anandaram v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

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 B v Mohana Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Nikhil Ubhayakar Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Gopalan Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Samriddhi Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Bbmp

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr N Harish Vs the State of Karnataka