Disposed

Sri.K.M. Somanna v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/2917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition sought a mandamus directing the Bangalore Development Authority to execute a rectification deed correcting the boundary description in the petitioner's 1995 sale deed. The Court, noting the allotment and possession certificate were undisputed, issued the mandamus with a four-month compliance period.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri.K.M. Somanna Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45425 WP No. 2917 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 2917 OF 2024 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K.M. SOMANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE K.A.MADAPPA, P.O. NO.65, POLIBETTA POST, SOUTH KODAGU, KODAGU - 571 215.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020. (BY ITS COMMISSIONER).

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. GIRISH N.R, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE THE REGISTERED RECTIFICATION DEED TO THE SALE DEED ANNEXURE-C BEARING DOCUMENT NO.1922/19951996, BOOK-1, VOLUME-1746, PAGES 115-116, DATED 05.08.1995, REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, RAJAJINARGAR, BANGALORE, WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATION, DOOR NUMBER, SCHEDULED AND THE MENTION OF 8TH CROSS ROAD IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE ANNEXURE-C SALE DEED BEARING DOCUMENT NO.1922/19951996, BOOK-1, VOMUNE-1746, PAGES 115-116, DATED 05.08.1995, IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:45425 WP No. 2917 of 2024

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.

¶23

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondent-BDA, to execute a registered Rectification Deed in respect of the Sale Deed dated 03.08.1995, mentioned as Document No.1922/1995-1996, Book-1, Volume-1746 Pages 115-116 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.

¶24

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the mother of the petitioner was allotted with a site bearing No.177/A, 5th Phase, 1st Stage, West of Chord Road, Bangalore, measuring 40x15 and thereafter, Possession Certification dated 02.05.1984, was issued in favour of the mother of the petitioner as per Annexure-A. The mother of the petitioner has constructed a house in the scheduled property as allotted by the respondent-BDA. A Registered Sale Deed dated

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45425 WP No. 2917 of 2024

¶26

03.08.1995 is produced at Annexure-C and the schedule to the

¶27

same reads as under:

¶28

" All the piece and parcel of Site No.177/A, West of Chord Road I Stage Vth phase Extension measuring East to West 40'-00" feet, North to South 15'-00" feet together with all rights, appurtenances whatsoever whether underneath or above the surface and bounded on:

¶29

EAST BY	:	ROAD.
WEST BY	:	SITE NO:	178/A
NORTH BY	:	SITE NO:	177
SOUTH BY	:	SITE NO:	176."

¶30

It is the grievance of the petitioner that, the schedule mentioned in the sale deed is incorrect and requires rectification by the respondent-BDA. It is also stated in the petition that the mother of the petitioner has executed a Registered Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner dated 07.10.2013 (Annexure-E) and Katha Certificate is also issued by the respondent-BDA.

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is that, subsequent to the registration of the Gift Deed at Annexure-E, the petitioner has noticed an error in the description of the schedule mentioned in the registered Sale Deed dated

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:45425 WP No. 2917 of 2024

¶34

03.08.1995 and as such, approached the respondent-BDA for rectification of the same and the same has not been considered by the respondent-BDA. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶35

It is the contention of Sri. M.Arun Ponappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, though there is an error in the schedule mentioned in the Sale Deed produced at Annexure-C, however, the same has not been rectified by the respondent-BDA and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court and further stated that, it is not in dispute with regard to the title of the property is concerned, as the same has been re-conveyed by the mother of the petitioner and therefore, there is no impediment for the respondent-BDA to rectify the sale deed, accordingly.

¶36

Per contra, Sri.Girisha N.R, learned counsel representing the respondent, submitted that, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the matter was considered by the respondent-BDA, as per Annexure-A, appended through the affidavit filed by one Smt. Mamatha, Assistant Commissioner,

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45425 WP No. 2917 of 2024

¶38

Recovery and Re-allotment of respondent-BDA and the schedule mentioned in the said affidavit reads as under:

¶39

"�ಾ�ಾ � ಾ� ಸ�ಳದ��ರುವಂ�ೆ ��ೇಶನ ಸಂ�ೆ�: 177/ಎ ರ ಚಕು�ಬಂ�ಯ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ

¶40

ಪ"ವ#$ೆ� : ರ�ೆ� ಪ&'ಮ$ೆ� : ��ೇಶನ ಸಂ�ೆ�: 198 GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ: ��ೇಶನ ಸಂ�ೆ�: 192

¶41

ದ)ಣ$ೆ�: ��ೇಶನ ಸಂ�ೆ�: 191/1 ಇರುತ�-ೆ"

¶42

Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, since the property is situated in the B.B.M.P jurisdiction and therefore, the BDA has to secure the appropriate permission from the B.B.M.P and as such other authorities to rectify the same and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶43

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the land in question has been allotted in favour of the mother of the petitioner and the boundaries mentioned insofar as the Site No.177/A in the Possession Certificate dated 02.05.1984 (Annexure-A) reads as under:

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:45425 WP No. 2917 of 2024

¶46

Boundaries and	*BOUN* East	*DARIES* ROAD
Dimensions of the site verified	West Site	178/A
and found correct	North Site	177
	South Site	176

¶47

In furtherance of the same, the absolute Sale Deed dated 03.08.1995 as per Annexure-C has been executed by the respondent-BDA in favour of the mother of the petitioner. Katha Certificate is also produced at Annexure-D. In that view of the matter, as there is certain discrepancies with regard to the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 03.08.1995 (Annexure-C), though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA, sought to justify the action of the respondentBDA, however, since there is no dispute with regard to the allotment of the site No.177/A as mentioned in the Possession Certificate (Annexure-A) and Sale Deed dated 03.08.1995 (Annexure-C), writ of mandamus is issued to the respondentBDA to execute the Rectification Deed to the Sale Deed dated 03.08.1995 (Annexure-C) with appropriate description in the schedule within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:45425 WP No. 2917 of 2024

¶50

It is made clear that the respondent-BDA shall

¶51

consider and comply with the aforementioned order

¶52

scrupulously and to file compliance report before this Court.

¶53

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶54

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶55

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT: BHK

Sri.K.M. Somanna v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri.K.M. Somanna v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mangamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Reddy Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Yashoda Veeramayanna Vs Karnataka Industrial Area

The Magadi Taluk Agricultural Produce Vs the State of Karnataka

K Narayan Vs the Commissioner

Sri D K Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka