IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.1667-1669 OF 2016 (LB) BETWEEN:
1. SRINIVAS RAO GUDIVADA SON OF PADMANABHAM G AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.493 7TH MAIN HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU -560 019.
2. SRINIVASA PRASAD R.R.
SON OF RAJASHEKAR GUPTHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.10 DR.BHIMSEN JOSHI ROAD HANUMANTHA NAGAR BENGALURU -560 019.
3. DANDAPANI.G SON OF GOVINDARAJU.M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28/1 9TH CROSS, N.R.COLONY BENGALURU -560 019 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MEGHACHANDRA D N, ADVOCATE) AND 1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU -560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE WARD NO.182 PADMANABHANAGAR RANGE CT BED, TYGARAJ NAGAR BENGALURU -560 028.
3. SMT.C.SHIVAMMA WIFE OF DR.N.MRUTHUYUNAJAYA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.32, 2ND CROSS SWASTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-27.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2 SMT.AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.37977/2013 DATED 16/03/2016.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge which is disposed off by setting aside the impugned order therein dated 27.03.2013 and directing the Corporation to continue the entries in the name of the writ petitioner in respect of the Khata relating to the property in question, respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 therein have filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are aggrieved only by that portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing that the entries should be continued in the name of the writ petitioner till the disposal of the suit. He further submits that notwithstanding the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the names of the appellants continues in the records, but the name of writ petitioner has not been entered therein.
3. On hearing learned counsels we are of the view, that irrespective of the pending civil suit, the learned Single Judge has directed that the khatha entries to be continued in the name of the petitioner. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents, who pleads that the name of the petitioner is rightly entered in the khatha entries. However, the said contention has remained a contention, without producing any supporting documents to substantiate such an argument.
4. Consequently the appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge is modified only to the extent wherein it was directed that the entries are to be continued in the name of the petitioner. The entries shall be made in terms of the decree to be passed in O.S.No.6089/2013 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms