Dismissed

Smt. Malathi Prakash v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/9558/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking to quash a possession certificate issued to a neighbour and directing the BDA to issue a certificate for her 1986 purchase. The court held that after 20 years, the petitioner could not claim enlargement of property or demand issuance of a certificate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; prayer for quashing possession certificate and issuing new certificate denied.

Smt. Malathi Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10347 WP No. 9558 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9558 OF 2016 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MALATHI PRAKASH WIFE OF S PRAKASH, AGEDA BOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.38, III STAGE 2ND BLOCK, WET OF CHORD ROAD BANGALORE-560 079.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B G., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

TEH COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, SANKEY ROAD BANGALORE-560 020.

¶14

SMT. LEELAMMA @ NEELAMMA WIFE OF LATE THIMMAIAH AGEDA BOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.342/B 6TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR BANGALORE-560 021. REPRESENTD BY HER SPECIAL POWER OF

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:10347 WP No. 9558 of 2016

¶17

ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI KEMPE GOWDA.

¶18

SMT MEENAKUMARI D/O LELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.620, 3^RD G CROSS II BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE-560 079.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI.D.R.SUNDARESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.09.1989 IN RESPECT OF THE SITE BEARING NO.620 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 61 + 64/2 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 29 + 28/2 FEET AGAINST THE ORIGINAL SITE MEASURING 50 X 30 FEET, ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-E AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the possession certificate dated 18.09.1989 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority in favour of the 3^rd respondent, on the ground that it is illegal and arbitration.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10347 WP No. 9558 of 2016

¶26

A prayer is also made to issue a direction to the

¶27

Bangalore Development Authority to issue a possession certificate in respect of site No.38 measuring 30’ X 50’ which was originally acquired by the petitioner under a Sale Deed dated 08.08.1986.

¶28

The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a site from one B.S.Krishna Murthy on 08.08.1986. It also appears that the 3^rd respondent and others had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.14687689/1986 seeking issuance of possession certificate in respect of their property measuring 30’ X 50’, which incidentally was also acquired by them under different Sale Deeds as the sites were the subject matter of reconveyance by the Bangalore Development Authority.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that her neighbours were issued with a possession certificate in respect of properties measuring 30’ X 50’, whereas even though the petitioner had purchased a similar extent of site measuring

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10347 WP No. 9558 of 2016

¶31

30’ X 50’, the possession certificate has not been issued to her by the Bangalore Development Authority.

¶32

It is the further case of the petitioner that issuance of the possession certificate in favour of the 3^rd respondent was illegal.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.2685/1990 against the Bangalore Development Authority as well as the 3^rd respondent seeking a declaration in respect of property bearing No.61, BDA site No.38 measuring 30’ X 50’ and also for a mandatory injunction. The Trial Court, after trial, decreed the suit in part and held that the petitioner was the owner of an area measuring 38’ X 30’ and has granted to her an injunction

¶34

in respect of said extent. As far as the prayer for mandatory injunction was concerned, and for a declaration in respect of remaining area, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:10347 WP No. 9558 of 2016

¶36

¶37

Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred

¶38

RFA.No.1216/2009 and this Court by an order dated 16.02.2015 disposed of the appeal without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner to work out her entitlement in an appropriate proceeding. This Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court that the petitioner was the owner of actual extent of land that was in her possession.

¶39

Based on the observations passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Regular First Appeal, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶40

As already noticed above, the petitioner has purchased the property measuring 30’ X 50’ on 08.08.1986. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had purchased said extent even before the Bangalore Development Authority had reconveyed the property or had issued a possession certificate in favour of her vendor. Unless, the petitioner’s vendor was issued with a possession certificate or was reconveyed an extent of 30’ X 50’ since the site being the subject matter of

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10347 WP No. 9558 of 2016

¶42

reconveyance, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that she was entitled to a site measuring 30’ X 50’ merely because the neighbours of the petitioners were issued with possession certificate on the basis of their title. The petitioner cannot also demand that she should be issued a possession certificate to the extent of the property mentioned in her Sale Deed.

¶43

It is also noticed that the petitioner is seeking for enlargement of her property, which she had purchased in the year 1986 and title of which had vested with the BDA by filing this writ petition nearly after 20 years. Having regard to the fact that the neighbours of the petitioner have been in possession of their properties pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14687-689/1986, it would not be an appropriate case to entertain the claim of the petitioner at this point in time. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶44

PKS/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

Smt. Malathi Prakash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Malathi Prakash 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gomedh Ambika Girinar Bhakthi Dham Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

C P Venkatesh Vs Nagarathnamma

Mr. P Diwakar Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Deepak Shetty Vs the Karnataka Wakf Board

M/S Durga Motors Vs Special Land Acquisiton Officer

K.V. Ramesh Vs the Secretary