IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.3511 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
K. V. NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SON OF LATE VENKATARAMAIAH RESIDING AT No.6, 3RD CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAIYYANAPALYA INDIRANAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560038 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. KUMARVEL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAYO HALL BENGALURU – 560001 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANAWADI COUNTER BENGALURU – 560043 3. M/S. AHUJA CONSTRUCTIONS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT AHUJA PALACE No.96, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU – 560025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON 09.10.2018.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Appellant herein is the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondent herein is the respondent. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the learned Single Judge.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioner is the grandson of Late Musalappa who was the owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.13/3, Benniganahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East (then Bangalore South). He died on 15.05.1984. After his death, his wife Smt. Channamma and daughter Smt. Nagamma filed a suit in O.S.No.3644 of 1984 for partition and separate possession before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The said dispute ended in a compromise in FDP No.35 of 2003. As per the compromise decree, petitioner was allotted site No.382 and 383 along with other properties in Sy.No.13/3 of Benniganahalli. Land bearing Sy.No.13/3 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas was acquired by government by gazette notification dated 12.10.1982, for NGEF House Building Co-operative Society along with other lands. At the time of issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition act, several structures were already in existence in the land of Musalappa and he did not give up the possession and did not receive any compensation. The NGEF House Building Co- operative Society sold site to S. Somasundaram, Son of N. Saravanna Pillai in the layout sanctioned by the BDA under a registered sale deed dated 20.08.1993. On the basis of the above said registered sale deed, khatha was transferred in the name of Somasundaram on 05.01.1994.
Petitioner filed a review petition under Section 114A of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 to review transfer of khatha in view of the decree of declaration of right by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.3644 of 1984 before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 appeared in the said proceedings and opposed the review petition on the ground that the review petition is not maintainable. Petitioner has not made any allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, etc., while getting the khatha changed in their name. The claim made by the petitioner relating to the committee report and order of various courts do not in any manner confer any right on the petitioner or to his family members over Sy.No.13/3 after the land was acquired and taken several other contentions, sought for dismissal of review petition. The respondent No.1 after considering the material on record, rejected the claim of the petitioner to revoke khatha vide order dated 25.08.2018.
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2018, passed by the respondent No.1 preferred Writ Petition No.40020 of 2018 before this court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order of respondent No.1 vide order dated 09.10.2018. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ appeal.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsels.
4. The claim of the petitioner is based on the compromise decree passed in FDP No.35 of 2003. The said decree does not bind the respondents as they are not parties to the suit. The NGEF House Building Co-operative Society sold the site in favour of S. Somasundaram vide registered sale deed dated 20.08.1993 and khatha was changed in the name of S. Somasundaram vide order dated 05.01.1994 by the Bengaluru Development Authority, Bengaluru. The petitioner has not questioned the khatha effected in favour of S. Somasundaram or in the name of the vendors of respondent No.3. When the petitioner has not questioned the khatha effected in the name of S. Somasundaram or in the name of vendors of respondent No.3, the petitioner does not get any right to challenge the khatha effected subsequently in the name of respondent No.3. Khatha was effected in the name of S. Somasundaram by the Bengaluru Development Authority in the year 1994 and review petition is filed after more than 3 years.
5. Both the parties are claiming title on the disputed property without ascertaining in which survey number the said site falls. During the pendency of the proceedings, survey was conducted by the survey department and a report was submitted stating that the disputed property is situated in Sy.No.7. Based on the survey report, respondent No.3 got confirmation deed from NGEF House Building Co-operative Society stating that the property in question is actually situated in Sy.No.7 of Benniganahalli Village. When the said site is situated in Sy.No.7, the petitioner has no right to revoke khatha as he is not the owner of Sy.No.7. When the disputed land was acquired by the government vide notification dated 12.10.1982, for the purpose of NGEF House Building Co-operative Society, the said land and other lands were vested with the government. Neither the petitioner nor his family members have challenged the acquisition proceedings. So the petitioner cannot claim any right over the disputed land in view of the said acquisition. The dispute between the parties is in regard to the title. The respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to decide the rights of parties. It is only the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties. The petitioner should agitate his claim in the civil court and not before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1, after considering the material on record and based on the survey report, has rightly rejected the review petition and directed the petitioner to approach the civil court. The learned Single Judge affirmed the order of the respondent No.1.
6. In view of the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
Order The writ appeal is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RD