Disposed

Smt. D.R.Hemalatha v. Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2024WP/48598/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to cancel revenue entries in favour of one respondent and register a property in favour of the petitioners. The Court held that title disputes must be resolved in civil proceedings, which are already pending, and thus refused interference while noting the existing revenue entries remain subject to the suit's outcome.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought was not granted; writ petition disposed of with observation that revenue entries are subject to the decision in the pending civil suit.

Smt. D.R.Hemalatha Vs Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48197 WP No. 48598 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 48598 OF 2019 (LB-BMP)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. D.R.HEMALATHA W/O SRI D R RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, BELLALA BOMMASANDRA, D PALYA POST-561206 GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶6

SMT T. SAROJAMMA W/O SRI THYAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, # 46, 6^TH MAIN, III STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK, SHAKTHIGANAPATHY VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560079.

¶7

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SMT S NAGAMMA W/O SRI P VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.5 (OLD NO.8), 4^TH CROSS, CUBBONPET, BANGALORE-560002.

¶9

SMT S KANTHAMMA W/O SRI H P RAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.21, 14^TH A CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT,

¶10

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48197 WP No. 48598 of 2019

¶11

VRUSHABAVATHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA,

¶12

BANGALORE-560079.

¶13

SMT R BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRI K RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.24, BULLET KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, THINDLU, BANGALORE-560092.

¶14

SMT. YESHODA SURESH KUMAR W/O SRI S SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, # 638, 8^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, II STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560072.

¶15

SMT S. KOMALA W/O SRI G SHANTHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, # 227E, NARAYANASWAMY LAYOUT, THIMMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, SHANKARNAG MAIN ROAD, III CROSS, WARD NO.6, ANEKAL-562106 BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶16

SMT S VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O SRI V G VISHWAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT, BEHIND SOWBHAGYA KALYANA MANTAPA, HOSUR ROAD, ANEKAL-562106 BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SURESH K.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48197 WP No. 48598 of 2019

¶20

AND:

¶21

BANGALORE BRUHATH MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP OFFICE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶22

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VYALIKAVAL, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶23

THARAMANDALAPETE HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD GANIGARA C GALLI JORIPETE BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND TREASURER.

¶24

SMT B V KAVITHA W/O SRI A SHIVPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO. 4082, 17^TH MAIN 2^ND STAGE BANASHANKARI BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.VENKATA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. C. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. ABHINAY Y.T, ADVOCATE FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.08.2024; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENTSERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R-2 TO CANCEL THE KATHA OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.72 IN SARAKI VILLAGE,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:48197 WP No. 48598 of 2019

¶30

UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK IN THE NAME OF THE R-4; ISSUE A WRIT OF DIRECTION TO THE R-1 AND R-2 TO THE REGISTERED THE KATHA OF THE SAID PROPERTY BEARING NO.72 TO THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, TH5285AY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have sought for directions to the Bengaluru Development Authority [ the second respondent ] to cancel the revenue entries [ Katha ] for the property No.72, Saraki village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [ the subject property ] in favour of the fourth respondent and for directions to the second respondent and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [ the first respondent ] to enter revenue entries for this property in their favour.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:48197 WP No. 48598 of 2019

¶37

The petitioners' case in a nutshell is that

¶38

the predecessor-in-interest, Sri D.R. Ramesh, has absolutely purchased the subject property from the third respondent who assured him to follow up with the second respondent for transfer of revenue entries. Their predecessor-in-interest has followed up with the second respondent for the needful, but to no avail. They have learnt that the third respondent, notwithstanding the transfer in favour of the predecessor-in-interest, has transferred the revenue entries for the subject property in the name of one Sri.Aswath, and some person claiming under him has subsequently transferred the subject property in the name of the fourth respondent.

¶39

3. Crucially, the petitioners in paragraph 12 of the petition have stated as under:

¶40

"In the year 2016, as the Respondent No.3 and others tried to interfere with the Petitioners' peaceful possession of the said property. After enquiry the Petitioners came to know that the Respondent No.3 without having

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48197 WP No. 48598 of 2019

¶42

any subsisting right, title and interest, has illegally executed a fraudulent sale deed in favour of one Sri Aswath. It appears after the demise of the said Aswath, his wife has illegally executed a fraudulent sale deed in favour of the Respondent No.4 herein. As such, the Petitioners were compelled to file O.S.No.7035/2016 on the file of the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (C.C.H.No.31) Bangalore, against the Respondent No.3, 4 and others for the relief of permanent injunction, declaration and other reliefs. The Respondent No.3 remained ex-parte. The Respondent No.4 filed her written statement alleging that the Respondent No.1 has registered of katha the said property in her name."

¶43

Sri K. Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Abhinay Y.T., the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, are heard in the light of this categorical assertion with Sri Abhinay Y.T clarifying that the petitioners' suit in O.S.No.7035/2016 is not just for permanent injunction but also for declaration as against the sale

¶44

deed in favour of Sri Aswath. Sri K. Suresh submits

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:48197 WP No. 48598 of 2019

¶47

that this Court must intervene, and grant relief as sought for because the petitioners' predecessor-ininterest is the prior purchaser.

¶48

However, this Court must observe that the question incidental to title and merits of the conveyance deeds must be examined in a properly instituted civil proceeding and in the present case the petitioners have already availed such remedy. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to interfere and issue a specific direction. The petition stands disposed of observing that the revenue entries for the subject property in favour of the fourth respondent will be subject to the final decision in the suit in O.S.No.7035/2016. It is needless to observe that the outcome in this writ petition cannot have any bearing on the decision in the suit.

¶49

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶50

SA ct:sr

Smt. D.R.Hemalatha v. Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. D.R.Hemalatha v. Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pallavi T S Vs State of Karnataka

Bishop Angels School Vs Chief Commissioner

G T Bopaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B v Mohana Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Nikhil Ubhayakar Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Gopalan Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka