Disposed

Smt Kanchana v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2024WP/58191/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to BBMP to execute a sale deed of a Gangmen quarter based on a government order. The court held that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act had concluded, ending her right to occupy, and disposed of the petition deferring coercive measures until 31 January 2025 with liberty to pursue remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty to avail remedies against concluded Public Premises Act proceedings; coercive measures deferred until 31 January 2025.

Smt Kanchana Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:53043 WP No. 58191 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 58191 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT KANCHANA W/O LATE SHANTHA KUMAR R/A CORPORATION GANGMEN QUARTERS NO.4 F-STREET, SLAUGHTER HOUSE SHIVAJI NAGAR BENGALURU-560051

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:53043 WP No. 58191 of 2018

¶18

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT, PERUSE THE SAME, ALLOW THE W.P. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO REGISTER THE SALE DEED OF THE CORPORATION GANGMEN QUARTERS NO.4, 'F' STREET, SLAUGHTER HOUSE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560051, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD01.07.2002 VIDE ANNEXURE-L BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS AT ANNEXURE-O AND P.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has sought for mandamus to the respondent to execute Sale Deed for the premises in Gangmen Quarters No.4, 'F' Street, Slaughter House, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560051 [ the subject property ] referring to a certain Government Order.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:53043 WP No. 58191 of 2018

¶24

Sri. H. M. Muralidhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has continued in possession of the subject property with her husband/her family after the demise of her in laws because her husband has filed an application for compassionate appointment and such application is still pending consideration. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner's father-in-law was allotted the subject property [a residential quarter]; that on his demise, his wife [the petitioner's motherin-law] is granted compassionate appointment and during the lifetime of both the parents-in-law, the petitioner has continued in possession of the property with her family.

¶25

In response, Sri. Amit Anand Deshpande,

¶26

the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that [a] during the pendency of the petition, the respondent has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:53043 WP No. 58191 of 2018

¶29

of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 [for short, ' the Public Premises Act '], [b] the petitioner has called in question the order to vacate and hand over the subject property under Section 10 of the afore Act in Misc.Appeal.No.27/2019, [c] the appeal is disposed of way back in February 2020 without intervening, [d] the petitioner has not called in question this order and even the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.25273/2016 for permanent injunction is dismissed by the Competent Court and the petitioner has not called in question even such judgment and decree. The learned counsel submits that therefore, this Court must dispose of the petition dissolving the interim directions to the respondents not to precipitate.

¶30

In rejoinder, Sri. H. M. Muralidhar submits that the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of the subject property notwithstanding the aforesaid orders because her husband's

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:53043 WP No. 58191 of 2018

¶33

application for compassionate appointment, is still pending consideration and as such, this Court may dispose of the petition directing the respondents not to precipitate and to consider the application for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶34

These submissions are considered, and this Court must opine that the petitioner's right to occupy the subject property has been brought to an end with the conclusion of the proceedings under the Public Premises Act and the petitioner cannot be permitted to occupy the subject premises only because an application for appointment on compassionate ground by her husband, is pending consideration. The petitioner's husband must work out his remedy under that score, and the petitioner must work out her remedy against the concluded proceedings under the Public Premises Act.

¶35

However, this Court, because the petitioner is granted interim protection in this

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:53043 WP No. 58191 of 2018

¶38

petition, is inclined to dispose of the petition reserving liberty to her, subject to all just exceptions in law, to avail the remedy as against the concluded proceedings under the Public Premises Act deferring any coercive measures until 31^st January, 2025 so that the petitioner has a reasonable time. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. It is needless to observe that all contentions on the merits of the Public Premises Act are left open for consideration.

¶39

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶40

Smt Kanchana v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kanchana v. Bruhat Bengaluru 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

Zuari World India Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Anjulamma Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. P R Radhakrishna Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt v M Sheela Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Sajjan Raj Vs the Commissioner

Oodadu Technology Private Limited Vs the Commissioner