Partly allowed

Smt. B. Eshwaramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024WP/7481/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 107 of the KMC Act against alleged encroachers. The Court held that merits are for the civil court in a pending suit and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the civil court to expedite interim injunction applications.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Civil Court directed to dispose of pending interim applications for injunctions expeditiously.

Smt. B. Eshwaramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7481 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. B. ESHWARAMMA W/O LATE SRI P. NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO. 181, R.V. ROAD V.V. PURAM BENGALURU-560004.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENTOFFICER NERALURU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶16

SRI. ANAND S/O. SRI. ARALAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO. 1433, BEHIND CANARA BANK, BOMMANAHALLI ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶17

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE B.M.YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MARUTHI LAYOUT, BESTHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562106.

¶18

SRI. H.R. SHIVAPPA REDDY S/O. SRI. RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SY. NO. 50/4 (PORTION) YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562107.

¶19

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. SRI. SHIVAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT SY. NO. 50/4 (PORTION), YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562107.

¶20

SMT. MAMATHA W/O. SRI. M. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MARUTHI LAYOUT, YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶23

ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562107.

¶24

SMT. VIJAYA V. W/O. SRI. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.1/588-1, MGR NAGAR, MOOKANDAPALLI, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-635126.

¶25

SRI. MUNI REDDY V. S/O. SRI. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.31/1, 6TH MAIN OPP. MILK DIARY, GOVINDASHETTY PALYA ELECTRICITY, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 100.

¶26

SMT. VANITHA W/O. SRI. NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SY. NO. 50/4 (PORTION) YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562107.

¶27

SRI. DHASARATHA REDDY S/O. SRI. MALLESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO. 17, MARUTHI LAYOUT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562107.

¶28

SRI. RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O. SRI. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶30

R/O BANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANDAPURA ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099.

¶31

SMT. KANMANI M. W/O. SRI. MURUGAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT RAGAVENDRASWAMY LAYOUT, YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562107.

¶32

SRI. G. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O. LATE SRI. M. GANGADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.14, MARUTHI LAYOUT, YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562107.

¶33

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ATTIBLE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER ATTIBLE - 562107.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. M.M.PRASHANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; SRI. S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R15)

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶37

AND TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE PERSONS WHO UNAUTHORISEDLY PUT UP/ERECTED CONSTRUCTIONS OVER THE LAND BELONG TO THE PETITIONER SITUATED IN LAND BEARING SY.NO.50/4, OLD PROPERTY NO.217, NEW NO.103, OLD JANJER NO.203, NEW JANJER NO.635, MEASURING 1 ACRE SITUATED AT MARUTHI BADAVANE, YADAVANAHALLI, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK.

¶38

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

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The dispute is between the petitioner, who asserts ownership of about an acre of land in Sy.No.50/4 of Yadavanahalli, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, which is assigned certain Municipal numbers, and the private respondents who, as alleged by the petitioner, have encroached her property to construct certain building. The present petition is filed for consideration of the petitioner's representation for removal of the alleged illegal constructions by the private respondents.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶43

Initially, the petition was filed only as against the concerned Village Panchayath [ the second respondent ], but now the fifteenth respondent [ the Local Authority] is arrayed a party because the Village Panchayat is included into the subject town municipal area. This Court must observe that, as of today, neither the second respondent nor the fifteenth respondent can place on record any material required for the disposal of this petition because the records are in transit.

¶44

Sri. G. B. Nandish Gowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner seeks direction to the fifteenth respondent to start proceedings under Section 107 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 [for short, ' the KMC Act' ] for determination of penalty payable by the private respondents as they have constructed without obtaining necessary Sanctioned Plan. However, Sri. M. M. Prashantha, the learned counsel for the private respondents, while refuting the assertion that

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶46

these respondents have encroached upon the petitioner's land, submits that the private respondents have constructed their respective

¶47

properties two - three decades back.

¶48

The question: whether the fifteenth

¶49

respondent can even contemplate proceedings under Section 107 of the KMC Act must be considered in the light of the following undisputed facts.

¶50

4.1 The petitioner has filed suit [ O.S.No.620/2010 ] against the respondents for declaration of title to one [1] acre in Sy. No.50/4 of Yadavanahalli Village and for permanent injunction preventing interference. This case is pending. The Executive Officer of the Anekal Taluk Panchayath, after earlier proceedings in W.P.No.26452-456/2015 and connected petitions, has issued orders for cancellation of Katha in favour of the private respondents on 19.06.2014.

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶52

4.2 The petitioner has filed writ petition in W.P.No.46570/2018 for implementation of this order,

¶53

and this Court has disposed of this petition on 23.02.2022 directing the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Anekal to implement such order within a certain timeframe.

¶54

4.3 The Executive Officer has thereafter issued the Order dated 05.05.2022. The petitioner has called this order in question in W.P.No.10808/2022. This writ petition is disposed of on 28.11.2023 observing inter alia that in view of the earlier order in W.P.No.46570/2018, there cannot be interference, but reserving liberty to the private respondents to furnish documents to substantiate their case while injuncting coercive measures.

¶55

4.4 The private respondents are issued with certain notices thereafter, but the outcome is not placed on record. However, the petitioner is issued with communication by the second respondent

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶58

informing her that the revenue entries in favour of the private respondents are cancelled.

¶59

These circumstances give a sheen of inconclusiveness on the closure of the dispute. However, this Court must opine that if the private respondents would not be entitled to the Katha for their respective extents with the fifteenth respondent [ the present Local Authority ] in view of the orders in the writ proceedings referred to above, neither would the petitioner be entitled to a direction to the fifteenth respondent for initiation of proceedings for levy of penalty under Section 107 of the KMC Act.

¶60

The petitioners' case for such direction is pivoted on the assertion that the private respondents have encroached upon a portion of her property and put up construction. At this stage, this Court can observe that the merits of the private respondents' case that they have put up construction in their respective portions many decades back, will also have

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶63

to be examined by the civil Court, amongst other aspects, in the pending suit in O.S.No.620/2010. Until such examination, this Court must conclude that there would be a flux and proceedings under Section 107 of the KMC Act would only hinder the adjudication. Therefore, the petition must be disposed of leaving all questions open to be considered in the suit in O.S.No.620/2010.

¶64

At this stage, Sri. G. B. Nandish Kumar submits that the petitioners have filed multiple interim applications in the suit in view of the fact that the private respondents have continued to put up construction despite the controversy and cloud over their right to title and possession, and therefore this Court must direct the civil Court to dispose of the applications expeditiously lest the construction goes unabated and despite the pendency of the proceedings.

¶65

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:45814 WP No. 7481 of 2023

¶66

This request is considered, and this Court is of the view that the civil Court must consider the pending applications and pass just orders as expeditiously as possible to ensure that the further constructions, even if any, are not precipitous. Hence, the petition stands disposed of calling upon the civil Court to endeavor to dispose of the pending interim applications for injunctions as expeditiously as possible leaving open all questions to be decided in the civil suit.

¶67

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶68

Smt. B. Eshwaramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B. Eshwaramma 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

Mr. K. Girish Kumar Naidu Vs the Chief Commissioner of Bbmp

Shruthi B Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Hugh Gerald Mascarenhas Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt Sunandamma Vs the State of Karnataka

V.K.Mohammed Afzal Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Mrs Rachana Ranka Vs the State of Karnataka