1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.47113/2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
SRI. S.B. JAYASIMHA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O. LATE S.B. VENKOBA RAO R/AT NO.25, (OLD NO.158) 3RD MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE-560 003.
(BY Mr. RAJANNA L, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER ... PETITIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MALLESHWARAM SUB DIVISION 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003.
... RESPONDENTS (BY Mr. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.06.2001 VIDE ANNEX-B, REPRESENTATION DATED 30.11.2001 VIDE ANENX-C, REPRESENTATION DATED 5.10.2009 VIDE ANNEX-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 321 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT & ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. Rajanna L, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. T.M. Venkata Reddy, Adv. for Respondents 1. The petitioner – Sri.S.B.Jayasimha s/o late S.B.Venkoba Rao without impleading his own Uncle Mr.S.B.Ranga Rao has filed the present petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 13.10.2017 raising the grievance against the said uncle Mr.S.B.Ranga Rao, who is alleged to have raised an illegal construction and for which, the petitioner is said to have filed a representation to the concerned authority of the Respondents-BBMP namely, the Asst.Executive Engineer, Malleshwaram Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, which has not been decided, though it was filed vide Annexure-F on 17.05.2017 and other representations also.
2. The relevant extract from the said Annexure-F Representation dated 17.05.2017 is quoted below for ready reference:-
“Also as per the document of City survey office, since 1958, in the name of father only the House Society have entered the property. The brother of my father, S.B. Ranga Rao by creating all bogus records at all stages, by neglecting the judgment of the Court also (Judgment issued in O.S.1777/94 that in the name of S.B. Ranga Rao, either the right of said property or Title is not vested), during December 2000 by got sanction of the house plan from the then A.E.E.
H.L. Ramada of your office (prior to that through newly introduced SAS for first time the house tax paid in Rajajinagar ARO office), later during 2002, by constructing 3 floor house, by got fixation of the tax (for own use) from the then ARO office, Malleswaram , was paying the tax. When I questioned in this regard, he started paying tax from 8 sq. feet to 10 sq. feet. But the plan sanctioned is for 8 sq. feet, but the house constructed is about 14 square feets.
Apart from this in some documents obtained under RTI from your office, in the face of the Sale Deed submitted by S.B. Ranga Rao, the word “Execution Admitted” has been deleted. Hence, the said Sale Deed has not been registered. Also S.B. Ranga Rao during 1993, to make believe has got written on stamp paper. But not entered in any Book in the office of the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar. Along with this, in the Affidavit, Indemnity Bond also, the name of his father is not shown. Hence, all the documents are bogus one. The sanctioning of the plan itself is violation of law.
At the same time, in the documents obtained from the BESCOM office, he has submitted the plan for the building he has constructed. I have enclosed the copy of this plan and the two plans sanctioned from your office along with this letter.
To say that S.B. Ranga Rao has no right on the said property after hearing the arguments, counter arguments on the Sale deed on 25-4-2015 heard in the High Court, since S.B. Ranga Rao is not the member of the Housing Society, as a successor of my later father in the Court of the Registrar of Co-operative societies, the Managing Director (Officer on behalf of the Government) of the Society by submitting the Affidavit, has given the statement that the Sale Deed is made only in the name of my father S.B. Venkoba Rao. In the same way the document of City Survey office also shows.
By enclosing all these documents along with this letter, brought to your perusal. Since when I met you on 11-05-2017, I was asked in this regard.
From all the above reasons, S.B. Ranga Rao by creating bogus records, got sanction of the building plan, and after constructing the building against the plan and though obtaining the rents, paying the tax only as own use, by filing the same documents to the Mahanagara Palike and to the Court, is to miss lead the authorities on wrong way. Hence, I request that by taking the action against him as per law and to reply to my letter under Right to Information Act, dated 27-3- 2017”.
3. After perusal of the record and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that not only the writ petition rakes up an issue of the old construction raised by his uncle Mr.S.B.Ranga Rao, who has not been impleaded by the Respondents- BBMP, which happened way back in the year 2002, but it also appears that such civil disputes about the ownership and construction being illegal and without sanction from the competent authority of BBMP is sought to be raised after long gap of more than 10 years under the guise of seeking mandamus to the Respondents-BBMP Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner. Such family disputes touching upon the civil rights of the members of the family cannot be adjudicated by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by unnecessarily rope in the public bodies like BBMP and trying to keep such lis alive in the name of representations filed to the public body like BBMP.
4. Nothing prevented the present petitioner or even his father prior to his death in the year 2004 to institute a proper civil suit in the matter. One such suit namely O.S.No.1777/1994 referred to in the quoted portion of the representation above, the details of which are not stated in the said representation nor the present status of the said civil suit is pending has also given, was one such remedy availed by the petitioner or his father.
5. Such controversy cannot be raised after a long lapse of period and trying to raise the dead issues between the parties. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the present case.
6. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
Copy of this order be sent to Mr.S.B. Ranga Rao at the address given in the writ petition.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.