IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.55134/2013 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Raja Rao.D.V, S/o.S.D.Venugopal Rao, Aged about 34 years, R/at.No.1569/2, Layada Beedi, Fort, Channapatna, Ramanagara District.
Channapatna – 562160.
(By Sri.Hemanthkumar.D, Advocate) AND:
1. Town Municipality, Channapatna, Ramanagara District, Channapatna – 562160.
By its Municipal Commissioner.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, Channapatna – 562160.
3. D.S.Ramachandra, S/o.Late S.D.Srinivasamurthy Aged about 45 years, R/at.No.511, Siri, Giridharshini Layout, …Petitioner Alanahalli, Mysore – 28.
...Respondents (By Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, Advocate for R1 Sri.S.G.Prabhakar, Advocate for R3 Sri.M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R1, not to proceed further in canceling the katha in favour of the petitioner herein, which is hereby annexed as Ann-B, having khata No.2966, dt. 14.11.13 & to follow the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in WP No.6566/1991, dt.23.10.98, vide Ann-A, in respect of property bearing No.1569/2 situated at Layada Beedi- Fort, Channapatna, Ramanagara Dist.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 not to take steps and cancel the Katha in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that Katha No.2966 stands in the name of the petitioner and that on the objections of the respondent No.3 attempts have been made to cancel the Katha of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner relies on the order passed in W.P.No.6566/1991 between the father of the petitioner and the same respondents which was disposed of on 23.10.1998, wherein it was observed that the parties are at liberty to establish the title in respect of the property in question before the Civil Court while setting aside the orders dated 18.07.1990 and 20.02.1991.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Town Municipality submits that there is no material placed by the petitioner to support their claim that action has been taken to cancel the Katha standing in the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent is bound by the directions passed in W.P.No.6566/1991.
4. In view of the same and noticing that there is no material forthcoming to evidence the claim of steps being taken to cancel Katha of the petitioner, petition is disposed off as not requiring any further orders subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE NS