IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P.Nos. 50392-50393 OF 2015 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. C. H. SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE V. VENKATESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) R/A NO. 692, 10TH A MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 11 REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER SRI. B.V.OMPRAKASH, S/O LATE V. VENKATESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.68, 3RD CROSS ROAD, RADHAKRISHNA LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE KADIRENAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 070.
2. SRI B.V. OMPRAKASH S/O. LATE V.VENKATESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.68, 3RD CROSS ROAD RADHAKRISHNA LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE KADIRENAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 070. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJAGOPAL M.R., ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER TUMKUR CITY CORPORATION TUMKUR-572 101.
2. THE REVENUE OFFICER TUMKUR CITY CORPORATION TUMKUR-572101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR R1 & R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR DATED 25.03.2015 VIDE ANN-R, R1 AND R2 AND ACCORDINGLY RESTORE THE KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petition land ad measuring 01 Acre 21 guntas in Sy. No.10 of Antharasanahalli Village in Tumakuru Taluk was bought by one Sri. V Venkateshaiah vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.08.1985 i.e., about three decades ago. After his death, the khatha was transferred in the name of first petitioner, his widow Smt C H Savithramma in whose favour the entries in the Property Registers were mutated vide ROC 123/09-10 of the City Municipal Council, Tumakuru.
2. The first petitioner Savithramma vide registered Gift Deeds dated 25.11.2009 gave to the second petitioner, the petition land which in the said Sy. No.10 which was having the Assessment No. 9347/2003; the second petitioner had sought for transfer of khatha and the CMC, Tumakuru after inviting objections from the public at large through the newspaper publication, had accorded transfer of khatha in his favour.
3. On the request of a third party namely, the Karnataka State Education Federation and College of Education, Tumakuru, the khatha of the second petitioner was revoked vide Endorsements evenly dated 14.10.2011 at Annexures N, N1 & N2. The petitioners laid a challenge to the same, by filing Revision Petitions which came to be allowed by the Deputy Commissioner vide orders evenly dated 25.03.2015 at Annexures R, R1 & R2. The Deputy Commissioner directed restoration of the khatha in favour of the second petitioner.
4. In terms of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, second petitioner had made a representation for restoration of his name to the Property Records concerning the petition land, which is now situated within the territorial limits of the Tumakuru City Corporation. The first respondent – Commissioner of the Corporation has issued the Endorsement dated 05.10.2015 at Annexure-T refusing to restoring entries in the Property Register, in favour of the second petitioner. In fact, the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Region, vide Letter dated 11.10.2015 at Annexure- U has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Tumakuru District to take appropriate action for the implementation of the DC orders whereby Revisions have been allowed.
5. Despite all this, the name of the second petitioner having not been restored to the Property Register by the respondents herein, the petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction for quashing of the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-T and for a direction to the respondents for restoring the names. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their panel counsel have opposed the writ petitions.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Panel counsel for the respondents. I have perused the Writ Petition papers as well.
7. The father of the second petitioner had bought the petition land by registered Sale Deed dated 28.08.1985 after the Karnataka Education Federation and College of Education, Tumakuru having been denied permission to buy the agricultural land by the Deputy Commissioner vide Endorsement dated 21.02.1985 at Annexure-A. Accordingly, the name of buyer Mr. V Venkateshaiah was entered in the Property Register.
8. After the death of Venkateshaiah, the petition property being situate within the municipal limits of the then CMC, Tumakuru, the khatha came to be transferred vide Endorsement dated 02.02.1990 at Annexure-D in favour of his widow who is the first petitioner herein vide ROC 123/09-
10. The first petitioner being the mother of the second petitioner gifted the petition property by Registered Conveyances both dated 25.11.2009 at Annexures F & K respectively. Accordingly, entries were also mutated in favour of the donee vide Annexure-M. This petitioner has paid the taxes also.
10. Strangely, the katha of the second petitioner came to be revoked vide Endorsement dated 14.10.2011 at Annexure N, N1 & N2 on the assumption that the original buyer, Mr Venkateshaiah had bought the petition property in his capacity as a Secretary of the Karnataka State Education Federation and College of Education, Tumakuru and therefore, the name of the said Society was entered after obtaining a legal opinion. These Endorsements were set aside by the Deputy Commissioner in petitioners’ Revision Petitions vide orders dated 25.03.2015 at Annexures R, R & R2. A direction is also issued by the Deputy Commissioner to restore the name of the second petitioner to the property within one month.
11. Astonishingly, the respondents herein have refused to restore the name of second petitioner to the Property Registers vide impugned Endorsements dated 05.10.2015 despite the orders of the Deputy Commissioner made under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. It is nobody’s case that these orders are set aside by any competent authority. Conversely, the suit in O.S.No.2/2015 having been dismissed, the plaintiff– Karnataka State Education Federation has lost the case against the petitioners herein. It is also stated that the challenge to the said dismissal upto the level of the Apex Court has attained finality. Thus, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever, for the respondents for not restoring name of the second petitioner to the petition property till someone else establishes his title thereto by appropriate proceedings.
12. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the Endorsement dated 05.10.2015 at Annexure – T; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents to restore name of the second petitioner to the Property Register concerning the petition property in terms of Deputy Commissioner’s orders dated 25.03.2015 at Annexure R, R1 & R2, forthwith and further, submit a compliance report to the Registry of this Court, without brooking any delay.
This is a fit case wherein exemplary cost ought to have been imposed. However, no costs are imposed as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, gracefully.
Sd/- JUDGE JS