Allowed

Sri T v. Sreenivas v the Executive Officer

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/35044/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner challenged a taluk panchayath order changing the property katha in favour of another claimant who had not joined him as party to that appeal. The court found the change was made without giving him any opportunity, quashed the order, and directed fresh proceedings after impleading him.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.06.2014 in VPC No.6/2011-12 quashed; petitioner directed to be impleaded; respondent No.1 to re-decide with opportunity to parties.

Sri T v Sreenivas Vs the Executive Officer — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20604 WP No. 35044 of 2015

¶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 WRIT PETITION NO. 35044 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI T V SREENIVAS S/O. SRI. VENKATASUBBAIAH.T.V. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT THEERINBEEDI THYAMAGONDLU VILLAGE & HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S G HEGDE .,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NELAMANGALA TALUK PANCHAYATH NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶13

THE SECRETARY THYAMAGONDLU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI. KRISHNA RAO SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶15

3(A) SMT. KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20604 WP No. 35044 of 2015

¶17

3(B) SRI. GURURAJ S/O LATE KRISHNARAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3(A) & (B) ARE R/AT THYAMAGONDLU VILLAGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶18

SRI. VENKATA RAO T.M. S/O. LATE. T.MUDULAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT PIPELINE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. R SHARATH CHANDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A & B): NOTICE TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:27.6.2014 PASSED VPC NO.6/2011-12 BY THE R-1 ANNX-J.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF ORDER DT.27.6.2014 PASSED VPC NO.6/2011-12 BY R-1 ANNX-J PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.POST THIS W.P. FOR PRLY. HG. BEFORE SINGLE JUDGE.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20604 WP No. 35044 of 2015

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 27.06.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-J whereby the katha has been changed in favour of respondent No.3.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing Kaneshumari Number 1277 measuring East to West 28 feet and North to South 19½ feet and Kaneshumari No.1268 measuring East to West 90 feet and North to South 20 feet with RCC building on 40x19 feet of Thyamagondlu Town, Nelamangala Taluk originally belonged to one Sri.T.M.Venkata Rao (respondent No.4). The said Venkata Rao sold the property in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 17.08.2007. After the petitioner purchased the property, katha has been changed in the name of the petitioner. The respondent No.3, who is claiming that he has succeeded to the property by way of partition, has filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 for change of name in the katha in

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20604 WP No. 35044 of 2015

¶28

respect of property bearing Kaneshumari No.1268. In the said appeal, the petitioner has not been made as party. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the respondent No.1 has erred in passing the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the land in dispute is related to Kaneshumari No.1268 measuring East to West 90 feet and North to South 20 feet, which the petitioner purchased from one Venkata Rao vide registered sale deed. After the katha has been changed in the name of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 has filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 for change of katha in his name and in the said appeal, the petitioner has not been made as party. Respondent No.1 without giving opportunity to the petitioner has passed the impugned order by violating principles of natural justice and directed to change the katha in favour of respondent

¶30

No.3. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20604 WP No. 35044 of 2015

¶32

The learned counsel for legal representatives of respondent No.3 has contended that respondent No.3 died during the pendency of this petition and hence the legal representatives of respondent No.3 have been brought on record. He contended that respondent No.3 had succeeded to the property by way of partition. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 for change of name in the katha. After considering the materials available on record, the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order directing for change of katha in favour of respondent No.3. There is no error in the impugned order. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

¶34

The specific case of the petitioner is that property bearing Kaneshmari No.1268 measuring East to West 90 feet and North to South 20 feet of Thyamagondlu Town, Nelamangala Taluk originally belonged to one

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20604 WP No. 35044 of 2015

¶36

Sri.T.M.Venkata Rao (respondent No.4). The said Venkata Rao sold the property in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 17.08.2007. Thereafter, katha has been changed in the name of the petitioner. The respondent No.3, claiming that he has succeeded to the property by way of partition, had approached the respondent No.1 for change of katha in his name. The respondent No.1 vide impunged order at Annexure-J allowed the appeal and directed for change of katha in the name of respondent No.3. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was not made as party. Since the petitioner purchased the property vide registered sale deed at Annexure-A and his name has been entered in the katha, he is a necessary party to the proceedings before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner has passed by impugned order by violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is contrary to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:20604 WP No. 35044 of 2015

¶39

same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

a) The writ petition is allowed.

¶42

b) The impugned order dated 27.06.2014 passed in VPC No.6/2011-12 by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-J is hereby quashed.

¶43

c) The legal representatives of respondent No.3 are directed to implead the petitioner as party to the proceedings in VPC No.6/2011-12 before the respondent No.1.

¶44

d) The respondent No.1 after giving opportunity to the parties shall decide the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri T v. Sreenivas v the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T v. Sreenivas v the Executive Officer

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

Smt Anni Saldanha Vs the Additional Commissioner East

Minal Morajaria Vs the State of Karnataka