Disposed

Sri. Nanda Kumar N.R. v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2024WP/7482/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Joint Commissioner's order under Section 150 of the BBMP Act reopening revenue entries after earlier proceedings under Section 114A of the KMC Act were closed in favour of him and his estranged wife. The High Court held the fresh proceedings lacked jurisdiction and directed entries continue as per the earlier order, subject to the civil suit outcome.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Nanda Kumar N.R. Vs Bruhath Bengaluru… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47058 WP No. 7482 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7482 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NANDA KUMAR N.R. S/O LATE N.V. RAMASETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.266, 34^TH A CROSS, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 9^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS JAYANAGAR 2^ND BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 011

¶16

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE KODIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 092

¶17

SMT VIJAYA NANDAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.266/1, 34^TH A CROSS,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:47058 WP No. 7482 of 2024

¶20

4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011

¶21

PRESENTLY R/AT 86/1, 7^TH A CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, ITTAMADU BANGALORE-82

¶22

SRI N R PRASAD S/O B NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.86, 7^TH A CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE 3^RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI BANGALORE - 560 085

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. KESHAV M DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3 VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2024, NOTICE TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 BEARING NO. JC(S)/KR/PR02/2022-23 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 BEARING NO. JC(S)/KR/PR/00-2022-23 PASSED BY THE R2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:47058 WP No. 7482 of 2024

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has called in question the second respondent's Order dated 02.01.2023 [Annexure-A]. The second respondent, by this impugned Order under Section 150 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'BBMP Act' ], has interfered with the earlier order dated 18.06.2022 under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 [for short, 'KMC Act' ]. The second respondent has opined that the fifth respondent would be entitled to the revenue entries for the property bearing PID No.60-155-38 situated on 5^th Main Road, 4^th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 011 [ the subject property ].

¶32

The petitioner's petition under Section 114A of the KMC Act is disposed of by Order dated 18.06.2022 directing that the revenue entries [Katha] for the subject property shall be continued in the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:47058 WP No. 7482 of 2024

¶35

name of the fourth respondent and the petitioner as co-owners. The petitioner contends that after the Order dated 18.06.2022, the second respondent could not have on his own motion entertained the proceedings under Section 150 of the BBMP Act. Sri Kalyan R, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Keshav M Datar, the learned counsel for the first to third respondents, are heard for final disposal of this petition in the light of this grievance.

¶36

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner acquired title to the subject property from his father under the Gift Deed dated 19.10.2006. The petitioner has executed the Gift Deed dated 17.11.2014 in favour of his wife [the fourth respondent] conveying the second floor in the subject property, and he has subsequently executed the Gift Deed dated 05.02.2015 [ in favour of the fourth respondent and their two daughters] conveying certain built up area in the ground and first floors along with

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:47058 WP No. 7482 of 2024

¶39

50% undivided interest in the sital area. The petitioner’s daughters have executed Gift Deed dated 28.02.2015 conveying their undivided interest in the property in favour of the fourth respondent who in turn has executed the Sale Deed dated 16.07.2021 in favour of the fifth respondent.

¶40

The petitioner being aggrieved by the revenue entries in favour of the fifth respondent consequent to the Sale Deed dated 16.07.2021 has availed remedy under Section 114A of the KMC Act, and these proceedings are closed by the Order dated 18.06.2022 which reads as follows:

¶41

"The sale deed of July 2021 shows Rs.2 lakhs as consideration for the sale of the undivided share in 2282 Sq. ft. property. This is far below the guidance value of the property. This shows that the transaction was made with other motives. The gift deed clearly mentions that the appellant has the first right of refusal, to prove which there is nothing on record. Therefore, the transfer in the name of N.R Prasad stands cancelled. The name of Shri. Vijaya

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:47058 WP No. 7482 of 2024

¶44

Nandakumar will be mentioned in the records as co-owner of the property. Case stand closed."

¶45

The second respondent has entertained the present proceedings under Section 150 of the BBMP Act, and has opined that the petitioner cannot call in question the revenue entries in favour of the fourth and fifth respondents and any dispute in this regard will have to be decided in a civil suit.

¶46

5. The petitioner has commenced the civil

¶47

suit in O.S. No.1349/2022 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, calling in question the Gift Deeds dated 05.02.2015, 28.02.2015 and Sale Deed dated 16.07.2021. The petitioner has relied upon certain circumstances to justify his challenge to these documents. This Court must also observe that the petitioner and the fourth respondent are estranged and there are matrimonial proceedings between them apart from the aforesaid civil suit in O.S. No.1349/2022.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:47058 WP No. 7482 of 2024

¶50

In these circumstances, this Court is of

¶51

the opinion that after the closure of the proceedings under Section 114A of the KMC Act, the second respondent could not have initiated fresh proceedings and arrived at any conclusion on the right that would flow under the Gift Deeds or the Sale Deed though such opinion is predicated on the observation that the civil Court would be the ultimate arbiter of this dispute. There is clear lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the proceedings under Section 150 of the BBMP Act after the earlier Order dated 18.06.2022.

¶52

The question now is whether the revenue entries must continue in favour of the petitioner or the fifth respondent until the outcome of the suit. As in the earlier proceedings under Section 114A of the KMC Act, it is already opined that the revenue entries must continue in favour of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the entries must continue in favour of the petitioner

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:47058 WP No. 7482 of 2024

¶55

and the fourth respondent subject to the outcome in the suit and that the outcome of the suit cannot be influenced by the observation in the Order dated 18.06.2022 or the impugned Order dated 02.01.2023.

¶56

With the directions in this regard, the petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶57

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶58

AN/-

Sri. Nanda Kumar N.R. v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Nanda Kumar N.R. v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

M/S Vishnu Priya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thrilok Chandar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Jagadish J Sule Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Gangadharaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Prasanna Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka