IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3058 OF 2014 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.L.V.SUBBARAYUDU SON OF L.V SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT H.NO. 1-4-4- BHAVANAGAR COLONY PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH -522 124.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADEESHACHARI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT- 562 106.
3. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NERALUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 107.
4. SMT. B. ESHWARAMMA WIFE OF LATE P. NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. SRI N. MANJUNATHA SON OF LATE P. NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 6. SRI P.N VISHWANATHA REDDY SON OF LATE P. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 7. SMT. N. USHA DAUGHTER OF LATE P. NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos.4 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.181 R.V. ROAD, V.V. PURAM BENGALURU - 560004 8. SRI. M. SAICHANDAR SON OF B. MUNNILAL PRASAD AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 883 1ST BLOCK, 13TH MAIN ROAD ANNANAGAR CHENNAI - 600040.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S S MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT No.1 SRI. G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.4 TO 7 RESPONDENT No.3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE IS SERVED TO RESPONDENT No.2 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.09.2017 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.03.2019, APPEAL AGAINST RESPONDENT No.8 IS ABATED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.49428/2014 DATED 12/11/2014.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 49428 of 2014, by which the petition was rejected, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition assailing the order dated 19.06.2014 passed by the second respondent in VPC Appeal No.21 of 2013-14 in setting aside M.R.No.118 of 1996-97 and other entries. The petitioner claims that he is one of the purchasers of site No.8 formed out of converted Sy.No.50/4 of Yadavanahalli village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk from one R.Manickam under sale deed dated 23.04.2005. The respondents No.4 to 7 filed O.S. 620 of 2010 for relief of declaration which is pending consideration. Another suit in O.S.No.2653 of 2006 is also pending which is a suit for declaration. In the said suit, the petitioner is also one of the defendant. It is stated that when those suits are pending, the respondents 4 to 7 suppressing the facts, obtained illegal order of setting aside M.R.No.118 of 1996-97 standing in the name of Respondent No.8 and other entries. It is stated that husband of the 4th respondent and father of respondents No.5 to 7 had purchased the land in Sy.No.50/4 and without notice to them, M.R.No.118 of 1996-97 has been effected in favour of respondent No.8. Hence they had filed appeal in VPC Appeal No.21 of 2013-14. Even though the suit filed by them in O.S.No.620 of 2010 for declaration is pending, the 2nd respondent passed the order allowing the appeal by setting aside the M.R. entry. It is the case of petitioner that there was no opportunity for him and others before the second respondent. The learned Single Judge on considering the writ petition, rejected the same holding that no material is produced to establish that Mutation Register stood in the name of the petitioner in respect of the immovable property and he has no locus standi to maintain this petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without looking into the material placed before him. Further, it is contended that the order of the second respondent is violative of principles of natural justice as he is not a party to the proceedings before the second respondent. It is stated that if he were to be a party before the second respondent, he would have placed the material available with him to the notice of the Court. Hence he prays for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents justifies the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that any order that would be passed in the pending suits would be binding on the parties. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The appellant claims that he is one of the purchasers of site No.8 formed out of converted Sy.No.50/4 of Yadavanahalli village, Attibele Hobli, from one R.Manickam under sale deed dated 23.04.2005. Suits in respect of Sy.No.50/4 are pending in O.S.NO.620 of 2010 as well as in O.S.No.2653 of 2006 for the relief of declaration, wherein in one of the suits, the petitioner is also one of the defendant. Even though the petitioner has produced sale deed dated 23.4.2005 at Annexure-A, he has not produced any M.R. entry in respect of the same. He has produced house tax assessment extract, but not the M.R. proceedings, wherein his name is entered. The said document is neither produced before the learned Single Judge nor before this Court in this appeal. There is dispute between respondents No.4 to 7 and respondent No.8 with regard to the Survey number in question. The appeal filed by respondents No.4 to 7 against the M.R entries made in favour of respondent No.8 before the 2nd respondent was allowed, which order is challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The petitioner has not stated in the entire writ petition as to how he is aggrieved by the said order and has not stated as to what is the relation of the petitioner with the parties to the appeal proceedings. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition by observing that the petitioner has not placed on record the material to show his mutation register entry. However, the suits for declaration are pending between the parties, wherein the petitioner is also one of the defendant. Any judgment and decree that would be passed in the pending suits would be binding on the parties as well as the Revenue Authorities. Hence, we are of the view that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to question the order dated 19.06.2014 in VPC appeal No.21 of 2013-14.
7. No good ground is made out by the appellant to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms