Smt. Latha a Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39684 WP No. 23484 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23484 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LATHA A. W/O NAGARAJ.R AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION-HOUSE MAKER, R/AT NO.433, NEAR OLD BUS STAND ROAD, KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE, BANGALORE-560060. REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER NAGARAJ.R S/O LATE RAMAIAH N AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.433, NEAR OLD BUS STAND ROAD, KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE, BANGALORE-560060.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R BANNUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BBMP ZONAL OFFICE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560080.

¶15

B.P. SRIKANTH S/O LATE B S PRASANNA KUMAR AGE: 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.21/1, RANGARAO ROAD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39684 WP No. 23484 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SHANKARAPURAM, BENGALURU-560004

¶19

B.P. SRINIDHI

¶20

S/O LATE B.S. PRASANNA KUMAR AGE: 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.21/1, RANGARAO ROAD, SHANKARAPURAM, BENGALURU-560004

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. DESHPANDE AMIT ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶23

VIDE ORDER DATED 04.11.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED IN W.P.NO.40777-778/2019 BY THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALTERNATIVELY RECALL THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED IN W.P. NO.40777-778/2019 BY THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has filed this petition invoking inherent powers of this Court to review and recall the order dated 10.01.2020 passed in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019.

¶28

(i) The respondent Nos.3 and 4 claiming to be

¶29

the successors of the property bearing demand register No.224, Kengeri Village, Khaneshumari No.404, Khata

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39684 WP No. 23484 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

No.201/172/224/B1, situated in ward No.159 of BBMP, Kengeri Hobli, Kengeri, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, filed W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019 for a direction to the municipal authorities to enter their names in the khata. This Court in terms of an order dated 10.01.2020, allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to consider the representations of the petitioners/respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein in accordance with law. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated in the writ petitions filed that the aforesaid property was purchased by their grandfather Sri. B.S. Srivatsan from Sri. Papanna in terms of sale deed dated 10.05.1958. They claimed that they were not aware of the said sale deed and during the year 2007-08 while they were searching for documents, they came across the aforementioned sale deed in favour of their grandfather. Therefore, they submitted representations to the municipal authorities to enter their names in the khata register and that as the said representations were not considered, they sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the municipal authorities to consider their representations.

¶33

(ii) After disposal of the aforesaid writ petitions, it appears that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.5973/2022 for

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:39684 WP No. 23484 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

declaration of her title and for injunction in respect of the very same property. It appears that in the said suit, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court seeking for review and recall of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions.

¶38

The petitioner contends that though the grandfather of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had purchased the property in question from Sri. Papanna, later he had reconveyed the same to Sri. Papanna in terms of a sale deed dated 19.11.1958. She contends that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had furnished a fictitious encumbrance certificate for the term 15.02.1957 to 31.05.1989 in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019 to seem as if the only transaction recorded in respect of this property was the sale by Sri. Papanna in favour of their grandfather. The petitioner contends that the encumbrance duly obtained from the office of the Sub-registrar discloses that between 15.02.1957 to 31.05.1989 there were five transactions in respect of the very same property and it also reflected the reconveyance by Sri. B.S. Srivatsan in favour of Sri. Papanna. It is therefore, contended that the order passed in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:39684 WP No. 23484 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

was behind the back of the petitioner and suppressing material facts.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and brought to the notice of this Court the encumbrance certificate produced by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019 and contends that it does not correspond to the encumbrance certificate obtained by the petitioner for the same term. He further contends that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 deliberately did not implead the petitioner, who was the successor of Sri. Papanna. He therefore, contends that the order passed by this Court being one passed behind the back of the petitioner, is liable to be reviewed and recalled. He further contends that the aforesaid order is coming in the way of the petitioner pursuing the civil remedies in O.S.No.5973/2022.

¶44

The respondent Nos.3 and 4 though served with the notice of this writ petition have not appeared.

¶45

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 however, contended that the petitioner instead of filing writ appeal against the order dated 10.01.2020 passed in

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39684 WP No. 23484 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019 has filed this writ petition and therefore, contends that this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶49

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶50

A perusal of W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019 filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 before this Court shows that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 claimed that the aforesaid property was earlier owned by one Sri. Papanna and that he had conveyed it to their grandfather Sri. B.S. Srivatsan. They claimed that they were not aware of the sale deed but came to now of it only in the year 2007-08 when they were searching for documents in their house. They also enclosed an encumbrance certificate for the term 15.02.1957 to 31.05.1989 in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019. They contended that though they filed representations before the municipal authorities for transfer of their names in the municipal records, the same were not considered. Therefore, sought for a direction to the municipal authorities to consider their representations.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:39684 WP No. 23484 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

It is clear from the above that the petitioner was not arrayed as party to the said writ petitions. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after noticing that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had sought for innocuous reliefs, allowed the writ petitions in terms of an order dated 10.01.2020 and directed the representations of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be considered in accordance with law.

¶55

It appears that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.5973/2022 for declaration of her title to the property in question and consequent relief of injunction. In the said suit, it was claimed that after Sri. Papanna conveyed the property to Sri. B.S. Srivatsan, the said Sri. B.S. Srivatsan re-transferred the property back to Sri. Papanna and that she had inherited the property of Sri. Papanna. This corresponds to the encumbrance certificate produced by the petitioner, which is marked as Annexure - J. Therefore, it is clear that there is a dispute between the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 as to who is the real owner of the property. Under the circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019 would affect the proprietary right

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39684 WP No. 23484 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

of the petitioner in the property in question. Since the order dated 10.01.2020 passed in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019 was behind the back of the petitioner and without any notice to her, the same deserves to be set aside. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶59

Shivdeo Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others

¶60

[AIR 1963 SC 1909], where it is held as follows:-

¶61

"8. The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Art. 226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla' J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39684 WP No. 23484 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

said that the respondents before us had no. right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was e entertained by Khosla, J."

¶65

Hence, the petition is allowed . The order dated 10.01.2020 passed in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019 is reviewed and recalled. The writ petitions filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P.Nos.40777-778/2019 are dismissed. However, this will not come in the way of respondent Nos.3 and 4 establishing their title over the property in question.

¶66

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶67

PMR

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Smt. Latha a v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Latha a v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Super Threads India Vs H L L Lifecare Limited

Sri M J Venkataramanappa Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies Cum Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Pavankumar G M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraju. T. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Nagarathna N B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohana H R Vs Sri Manjunatha H.S.