IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO. 4113 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
SRI MANIVELU G.R.
SON OF M. RATHNAVELU, AGED 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 64/65, OM NILAYAM, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, GANESHA LAYOUT M.S. PALYA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 097.
(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATHISH. D.J., ADVOCATE) AND:
... APPELLANT 1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU – 560 064.
2. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER YELAHANKA SUB-DIVISION, BBMP BENGALURU – 560 092.
3. JOINT COMMISSIONER YELAHANKA SUB-DIVISION, BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU – 560 092.
4. HEAD LEGAL CELL BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.49362 OF 2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.49362 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The petitioner had sought for change of katha in his name. An endorsement was issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike declining to transfer the katha in respect of the property in question on the ground that the katha relating to the said property is already standing in the name of Mr.M. Prahlad and Mr. Ramaiah Channappa. Therefore, until and unless the Competent Civil Court decides the same, the katha cannot be transferred.
3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in view of the settled position of law that when there is more than one claimant over a property, the katha cannot be transferred in favour of one of the parties, dismissed the petition. Further, the Court held that the katha cannot be transferred in the name of the petitioner in the absence of a declaration from the competent Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that even the Corporation has issued yet another endorsement, which is produced as an additional document herein, wherein the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has stated that it is not known on what basis the katha is made in the name of Sri M. Prahlad and Sri Ramaiah. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be allowed.
5. We are unable to accept such a contention.
The subsequent endorsement cannot form the subject matter of the writ petition. Even otherwise, even if the contention is to be accepted that the respondent – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike is not aware on what basis the katha was made in favour of other persons, that too is a subject matter to be decided by the competent Civil Court. It is the Civil Court, which has to decide with regard to the ownership and the consequential katha of the parties. Insofar as the additional document is concerned, it would not come to the aid of the appellant. Consequently, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Pending applications stand rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA