IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.49955/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
SRI U.M.JAGADISH S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.141, 5TH CROSS, M.P.M. LAYOUT, MALLATHALLI, BANGALORE-560056. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADV. FOR SRI R.D.PANCHAM, ADV.] AND:
1 . BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM) CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2 . ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) 8TH NORTH SUB-DIVISION, D GROUP EMPLOYEES LAYOUT, SRIGANDHADAKAVALU, BANGALORE-560091. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-P.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure – P to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Site No.1886, which is carved out of the converted land in Sy.No.3/2 of Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South 30 feet, totally measuring 1200 square feet, formed by the Karnataka D Group Employees’ Central Association. It is contended that the petitioner had acquired the rights over the property in question by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 14.09.2006 executed by his vendor Sri. R. Mylarappa for a valuable consideration. Civil dispute is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.4706/2018 between the petitioner and Smt. Shuchetha Raj, the complainant who requested the respondent – Authorities to cancel the electricity power supply connection to the property in question. In the suit proceedings, an order of temporary injunction has been granted restraining Smt. Shuchetha Raj (defendant therein) from interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the suit property till the disposal of the suit. On the appeal filed by the said Smt. Shuchetha Raj in MFA No.6944/2018, this Court has categorically observed that if the construction is allowed to be continued by the plaintiff/petitioner and ultimately the Court holds that the plaintiff had no right to construct the building in survey No.3/2, particularly in site No.1886, in such an eventuality, the benefit would be to the defendant that the plaintiff without claiming any equity over the construction of the building, has to give up said property in favour of the defendant, if he fails to prove that he has constructed the building in site No.1886 in survey No.3/2. It is held that when the construction is at the completion stage, it may not be proper for this Court to set aside the order of the trial court restraining the plaintiff from putting up construction in the suit schedule property. Ultimately, the Court has to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties at the time of final disposal of the case.
3. The impugned order dated 09.10.2019 at Annexure – P is passed based on the complaint/objections made by Smt. Shuchetha Raj dated 25.08.2018. Respondent No.2 has given a finding that the property of the petitioner now constructed comes in Sy.No.24/3 (24/3A), BBMP Ward No.129, Jnanabharathi Srigandadakavalu village and accordingly, the electricity connection/installation given to the property in question has been cancelled forfeiting the deposit amount. It is trite that no statutory authorities are empowered to give a finding inasmuch as the identity of the property when such lis is pending before the competent Civil Court. It is ex-facie apparent that respondent No.2 has exceeded the jurisdiction in giving a positive finding that the building constructed by the petitioner comes within Sy.No.24/3(24/3A) which adversely affects the rights of the petitioner and would have a bearing on the pending litigation before the competent Civil Court.
4. Hence, the order dated 09.10.2019 at Annexure – P is quashed. In view of the order passed by this Court in MFA No.6944/2018 as aforementioned, the petitioner being directed to give up the property in favour of the defendant in O.S.No.4706/2018 if he fails to prove his case and the temporary injunction order granted by the competent Civil Court not being disturbed, the power supply restored to the petitioner’s building shall be continued subject to the result of O.S.No.4706/2018 pending on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH – 45). The petitioner shall continue to pay the applicable consumption charges.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, pending I.A. is consigned to file.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR