Quashed

Smt Shakuntala Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024WP/27460/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata (B-Khata) revenue entries in the petitioner's favour were cancelled by the Joint Commissioner under Section 150 of the BBMP Act without affording her an opportunity to be heard despite a pending adjournment request. The Court quashed the order and endorsement and restored the proceedings to the Joint Commissioner for reconsideration with due opportunity to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.08.2024 and endorsement dated 30.08.2024 quashed; proceedings restored to the Joint Commissioner for reconsideration with due opportunity; parties to appear on 09.12.2024.

Smt Shakuntala Devi Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27460 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO.257, 15^TH C MAIN HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-3 BENGALURU-560 102.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUNIRAJA M.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REVENUE DEPARTMENT. M.S BUILDING. DR.AMBEDKAR VEDHI, BENGALURU 560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE. N.R SQUARE. BENGALURU 560 002.

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BOMMANAHALLI ZONE

¶16

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶18

CMC BUILDING, BEGUR ROAD BOMMANAHALLI

¶19

BENGALURU-560 068.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, HSR SUB DIVISION BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE. BEHIND BDA COMPLEX HSR 6^TH SECTOR, 9^TH MAIN 14^TH A CROSS, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 102.

¶21

SRI N.G. MOHAN KUMAR S/O GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.322, 28^TH MAIN SECTOR-2, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶22

SRI WILSION E A S/O LATE E Q ANTONY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.998 9^TH MAIN SECTOR-7 HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560102.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN IYYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶26

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.8.24 PASSED BY THE R3 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF BBMP IN CASE NO.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶29

BBMP/ NYA.VYA.VYA/ PR/ 730/ 2023-24 AND CONSEQUENTLY ENDORSEMENT DATED 30-08-2024 ISSUED BY THE R4 ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER VIDE NO. BBMP (HSR)/PR/854/2023-24 FOR CANCELLATION OF THE KHATA STANDING IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY NO. 109/46/5 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 30 FEET, NORTH TO SOUTH 120 FEET, SITUATED AT GARVEBHAVI PLAYA, HONGASANDRA VILLAGE AND DHAKALE, BENGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PRESENTLY WHICH COMES UNDER THE BBMP WARD NO. 190 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B, AND DIRECTING THE R4 ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER TO RESTORE THE KHATA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY NO. 109/46/5 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 30 FEET, NORTH TO SOUTH 120 FEET, SITUATED AT GARVEBHAVI PALYA, HONGASANDRA VILLAGE AND DHAKALE, BENGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PRESENTLY WHICH COMES UNDER THE BBMP WARD NO. 190 AND TO CONSIDER THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioner is given the advantage of the revenue entries [referred to as ' B - Khata' ] for a property within BBMP HSR Subdivision, Ward No. 190, Garebhavi Palya Village, Hongasandra, Bengaluru [ the Subject Property ] in No.109/46/5 by the Bruhut Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [ BBMP ]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the third respondent's Order dated 29.08.2024 [ Annexure - A ] under Section 150 of the Bruhut Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ' BBMP Act, 2020' ] and the fourth respondent's consequential Endorsement dated 30.08.2024 [ Annexure - B ].

¶36

The third respondent has registered proceedings in BBMP/Nya.Vya./PR/730/2023-24 on the fifth respondent’s application seeking cancellation of the revenue entries for the Subject Property in favour of the petitioner contending that the petitioner

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶39

is given the benefit of such entries for a portion of a Public Road. The fifth respondent, to substantiate this application, has relied upon different documents, which are referred to by the third respondent in the course of the impugned order dated 29.08.2024. The third respondent in the impugned Order dated 29.08.2024 [ Annexure - A ], referring to the orders of this Court in the year 2014 in WP Nos.6734 - 6751/2013 and the different documents relied upon the fifth respondent, has opined that the subject revenue entries for the Subject Property in favour of the petitioner must be cancelled. The fourth respondent, acting consequent to such order, has issued the impugned Endorsement dated 30.08.2024 informing the petitioner the revenue entries for the Subject Property are cancelled.

¶40

Sri D. R. Ravi Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the proceedings in BBMP/Nya.Vya./PR/730/2023-24,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶43

contends that the third respondent, on 14.08.2024, has permitted the petitioner to file Statement of Objections listing the case for 29.08.2024 but on that day, without an opportunity to the petitioner to present her case either in writing or orally though a request for adjournment is made on her behalf on health grounds, has posted the proceedings for orders resulting in the impugned Order [ Annexure - A ] on the same day and that on the very next day the fourth respondent has issued the impugned Endorsement [ Annexure - B ].

¶44

Sri D.R.Ravishankar contends that these circumstances show that the third respondent has concluded the proceedings without due opportunity to the petitioner, and therefore this Court must interfere and restore the proceedings for reconsideration with reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to justify the revenue entries in her favour for the Subject Property.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶47

Sri Harish H V, the learned counsel who is

¶48

on record for the fifth respondent, proposes to justify the third respondent's decision to cancel the revenue entries in favour of the petitioner primarily contending that the petitioner, taking advantage of the impugned revenue entries, is trying to build construction on a property which is indisputably a ' Public Road '. The learned counsel also contends that the petitioner has filed a civil suit along with an application for temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit and that the civil Court has rejected the petitioner's application for temporary injunction opining that the revenue entries in favour of the petitioner is for a ' Public Road'.

¶49

Smt. Spoorthi V., a learned High Court Government Pleader HCGP for the first respondent, and Sri B.S. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for the second to fourth respondents, are heard in the right of these rival submissions. This Court must firstly

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶52

opine that if the petitioner has not been extended requisite opportunity to show cause against cancellation of the revenue entries, it would be in violation of the statutory requirement that is contemplated under Section 150 of the BBMP Act. Secondly, this Court must observe that if opportunity is contemplated before an Order under Section 150 of the said Act, any finding against the petitioner leading to the cancellation of the revenue entries for the Subject Property should be considered tenuous.

¶53

The provisions of Section 150 of the BBMP Act read under:

¶54

Review by the Chief Commissioner .- Where the Chief Commissioner, either suo-motu or otherwise, after such enquiry as he considers necessary is satisfied that any transfer of title under Section 149 was got recorded in the Corporation register by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete material, he may within a period of three years from the date of such recording of transfer of

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶56

title reopen the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit:

¶57

Provided that, no such order shall be made except after giving the person likely to be affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶58

[Provided also that, no such limitation shall apply in case such a wrongful or incorrect entry is made with respect to a Government land or a land belonging to any local body, any statutory body or an organization owned or controlled by the Government.

¶59

It is seen from the proceedings in

¶60

BBMP/Nya.Vya./PR/730/2023-24 [Annexure-N] and the request filed in writing on behalf of the petitioner on 29.08.2024 [ Annexure - N1 ] with the third respondent, that a request is made on behalf of the petitioner for an adjournment stating that she is hospitalized but the third respondent, without reference to the same, has posted proceedings for order with the impugned Order [Annexure - A] being pronounced on the same day.

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶63

This Court must opine that a reasonable opportunity in the proceedings under Section 150 of the BBMP Act is a must, but the impugned Order is without such opportunity. Therefore, this Court must interfere with the impugned Order and Endorsement [ Annexures - A and B ], but this Court must also observe that the third respondent must re-examine all questions otherwise with due opportunity to both the petitioner and the fifth respondent. Further, this Court must sound a caution: this interference will not entitle the petitioner to plead equity if there are orders against the petitioner in the civil proceedings as asserted on behalf of the fifth respondent, and such orders must prevail unless interfered with by the superior Court/s. Hence, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

[A] The petition is allowed-in-part. The impugned Order dated 29.08.2024 [ Annexure - A ] and Endorsement dated

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:47564 WP No. 27460 of 2024

¶68

30.08.2024 [ Annexure - B] are quashed

¶69

restoring the proceedings in BBMP/Nya.Vya/PR/730/2023-24 to the third respondent for re-consideration leaving open all questions for due consideration.

¶70

[B] The petitioner and the fifth respondent shall appear before the third respondent without further notice on 09.12.2024.

¶71

[C] The third respondent, after extending all opportunity to the petitioner and the fifth respondent to complete pleadings, shall conclude the proceedings strictly in accordance with law.

¶72

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶73

SA*

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt Shakuntala Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shakuntala Devi v. the State of Karnataka

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. Somaraju Vs the Commissioner of City Municipal Council

Mr Ravi Dhanunjaya Vs the Commissioner

Syed Ahmmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt N S Gayathri Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.B. Mahendra Vs the Commissioner

Sri Pallavi T S Vs State of Karnataka