Sri M. Prabhakar Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:241 WP No. 19507 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19507 OF 2021 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M. PRABHAKAR S/O SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 291, VIDYAPEETA ROAD, OPP. KARNATAKA BANK ATM, BANGALORE - 560 085.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HEMANTH N.P.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. MADHU GUPTA W/O SATISH KUMAR GUPTA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 1221 23^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJA H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.S. SREEKANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER OF TRANSFER OF SITE NO.1221, II STAGE

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:241 WP No. 19507 of 2021

¶19

EXTENSION OF BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE BY THE CITB/BDA-R1 DATED 10.07.1974 IN FAOUR OF SMT. KAMALAMMA VIDE ANNEXURE-"F".

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs;

¶24

"(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ in nature of certiorari, quashing the Letter of Transfer of site No.1221, II Stage Extension of Banashankari, Bangalore by the CITB/BDA-R-1 dated 10.07.1974 in faour of Smt. Kamalamma (vide Annx-F) and the lease cum sale agreement dated 03.10.1977 executed by citb/bda in favour of Sri Muniyappa (vide Annxure-"P") and absolute sale deed executed by CITB/BDA in favour of Sri.Muniyappa dated.02.02.1991 (Vide Annexur"Q").

¶25

(ii) and consequently issue a writ of certiorari that the sale deed dated.02.01.1980 executed by Sri Muiyappa registered in favour of Sri Krishna (Vide Annexure-"R")

¶26

(iii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate wit or order directing the jurisdictional Sub Registrar not to register any deed/conveyance deed/ sale deed transferring the right, title and interest in Site No.1221, II Stage Extension of Banashankari, Bangalore in favour of any third parties as the petitioner herein is the only legal heir entitled to the absolute ownership of this site.

¶27

(iv) Second Respondent not to alter/alienate or create third party interest in the Site Bearing No.1221, II Stage extension of Banashankari,

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:241 WP No. 19507 of 2021

¶30

bangalore, pending decision of this Hon'ble court in the above matter.

¶31

(v) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order prohibiting further sale of site no.1221 measuring 30 fe. x 50ft. in II Stage extension of Banashankari, Bangalore".

¶32

2. Case of the petitioner is that one Smt.Thimmakka

¶33

was the owner of the site No.1221 measuring 45 ft. X 60 ft. in Sy.No.42/1 situated at Gavipuram Extension which was acquired by the then City Improvement Trust Board (for short CITB) in the year 1964-65.

¶34

Upon an application made by said Thimmakka a housing site measuring 30 ft. X 55 ft. was allotted by the CITB in Banashankari II Stage Extension, Bangalore. The said Thimmakka is the mother of the petitioner and had paid the amount to CITB as per the directions of the CITB. That on 10.07.1974 son-in-law of said Thimmakka Sri. Muniyappa had fraudulently made an application to the Chairman of CITB for transfer of said property in the name of Smt. Kamalamma, daughter of Smt. Thimmakka (sister of the petitioner). That the mother of the petitioner had no intention to transfer the site in favour of her daughter. That the brotherin-law of the petitioner fraudulently and deceitfully by

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:241 WP No. 19507 of 2021

¶37

manipulating the records had obtained the transfer of the property.

¶38

That on 23.11.1976 Smt. Kamalamma in turn had

¶39

written letter to the Chairman of CITB to transfer the allotment of the said site in the name of her husband-Sri Muniyappa which was again a fraudulent transaction. Thus, the said Muniyappa and Kamalamma had played fraud on the mother of the petitioner in having the property transferred in their names.

¶40

That on 23.11.1977, the Bangalore Development Authority, successor of CITB had issued a possession certificate in favour of Muniyappa and had also executed a Lease-cumSale Agreement in his favour in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, upon the application made by said Muniyappa, respondent -BDA on 02.02.1991 had executed absolute deed of sale in favour of Muniyappa. Said Muniyappa in the meanwhile has sold the said property in favour of one Sri. Krishna on 02.01.1980. The said Krishna in turn had sold the said property in favour of one Sri. Panchalingaiah, who in turn has sold the property to one Sathish Kumar Gupta, the deceased husband of

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:241 WP No. 19507 of 2021

¶43

the respondent No.2. Thus, based on these allegations of fraud, manipulation and misrepresentation, the present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs as noted above.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that there was a non-alienation clause in the deed of sale and the respondent No.1-BDA was thus not justified in conveying the property as sought for by the Muniyappa and Kamalamma without ascertaining if the conditions were complied or not. He submits therefore the petition against the respondent No.1-BDA is maintainable.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-BDA submits that the dispute is purely a private dispute between the family members, based on allegations of fraud, manipulation of records to which the respondent No.1-BDA cannot be held accountable. He submits that the property was apparently allotted by the CITB in favour of Smt.Thimmakka and thereafter as per the records it was transferred in the name of Smt.Kamalamma and upon the applications made by the parties the respondent No.1-BDA has acted upon in

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:241 WP No. 19507 of 2021

¶48

accordance with law and if there is any dispute interse between family members, the parties may have to seek redressal of their grievances in the manner known to law. He submits that the disputed questions of law of this nature cannot be gone into in the writ petition. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶49

Counsel for the private respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that the allegations made in the petition are misconceived, inasmuch as, the petitioner himself is one of the witnesses to the Absolute Sale Deed dated 06.10.1977 and that he is aware of all the transactions all along and the present belated attempt is being made after several decades, is completely and hopelessly time barred and the petition is requires to be dismissed on that ground alone. He also supplements the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-BDA to contend that the disputed questions of fact of this nature cannot be gone into in the writ petition. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶50

Heard. Perused the records.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:241 WP No. 19507 of 2021

¶53

Case of the petitioner is that the subject property was allotted to his mother by the erstwhile CITB and that based on the fabricated and created documents, his brother-in-law namely, Sri. Muniyappa had got the property transferred in the name of Kamalamma, who is none other than the sister of the petitioner during the lifetime of Muniyappa. It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter Smt.Kamalamma had sought for transfer of subject property in the name Sri.Muniyappa and Muniyappa had subsequently sold the property in the year 1980 to third parties. According to the petitioner all these exercises were undertaken by the said Muniyappa and Kamalamma only to defraud the petitioner and his mother.

¶54

Clearly, the aforesaid allegations, averments and the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner would indicate the petitioner is seeking relief based on the allegations of fraud, forgery and fabrication of documents which have been allegedly brought into existence by the said Muniyappa. This being the case of the petitioner, as rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent No.1 -BDA and counsel for the private respondent No.2, present writ petition against the respondent No.1-BDA is not maintainable as there is no

¶55

8 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:241 WP No. 19507 of 2021

¶57

statutory and constitutional right sought to be canvassed by the petitioner in this writ petition. Since serious disputed questions of facts based on the allegations of fraud and forgery are raised, this court refrain to show any indulgence in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶58

Hence, keeping open all questions to be urged, if so advised, by the petitioner before the appropriate forum, petition is dismissed as it lack merits requiring interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶59

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶60

RU

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri M. Prabhakar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M. Prabhakar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Govindaraju Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri H Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs T G Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Praneshwari P K Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority