IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.31271/2017 (LB BMP) Between:
Shivashankar S/o Netaji N.G Age: 29 Occ: Student R/o No.25, Istawasoballapa Garden K.R.Road, Bengaluru-560070. ... Petitioner (By Sri Girish B Mangannavar, Party-in-person) And:
1. The Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike Bangalore.
2. The Assistant Revenue Officer BBMP (Ward (167) Banashankari Sub Division, Bangalore South Bangalore. ... Respondents (By Sri Omkar Kambi, Adv.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-2 to consider the representation dated 2.1.2017 at Annex-A in accordance with law.
This writ petition coming on for ‘Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group’ this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the petition seeking for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation at Annexure - A and order for bifurcation of Katha. The petitioner states that the property No.7, 1st Cross, Tata Silk Farm, Yediyur has been purchased on 29.11.1975 by N.G. Balasubramanya and N.G. Nethaji (father of the petitioner). The petitioner states that despite the said representation no action has been taken by the respondent – BBMP.
2. Learned counsel Sri. Omkar Kambi, appearing for the respondent-BBMP has submitted that proceedings had been initiated pursuant to the representation of the petitioner and that the said proceedings would reveal that after the death of N.G. Balasubramanya, Katha with respect to the entire property was transferred into the name of B. Ambhika in the books of the Municipal authority. Proceedings would also reveal that the respondent – BBMP taking note of the fact that the property was purchased jointly by the petitioner’s father and N.G. Balasubramanya has stated that it was not possible to consider the representation till there was a partition amongst the joint purchasers. In light of the proceedings at Annexure-B the question of consideration of representation at Annexure-A does not arise. The question of bifurcating the katha as rightly noted in the proceedings of the respondent-BBMP could be considered only upon there being a deed of partition recognizable in law without which there could not be any recognition of the division of property. Hence, no grounds are made out for issuance of a writ for consideration of the representation at Annexure-A. In fact the respondent-BBMP as per proceedings at Annexure-B has already dealt with the request of the petitioner similar to that which is found at Annexure-A at an earlier point of time and has come to the conclusion that the request for bifurcation cannot be considered.
3. It is further noticed that the father of the petitioner who was the purchaser through the sale deed dated 29.11.1975 being alive, the question of considering the request for bifurcation could be made, if at all by the father of the petitioner who was the party to the sale deed by virtue of which title was obtained by the petitioner’s father and N.G. Balasubramanya. On this ground also the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT:HR