Karnataka High Court
Sri Rudra Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION Nos.9656-9658/2012 (LB-RES)
Between :
1. Sri Rudra Naik
S/o Rudra Naik
Aged about 45 years
2. Sri Malla Naik
S/o Rudra Naik
Aged about 50 years
3. Sri Veerabhadra Nayaka
S/o Rudra Naik
Aged about 40 years
All R/At Gowedra Beedhi
Hale Town, Challakere 577 522
Chitradurga District. ... Petitioners
(By Sri N V Manjunath, Adv.)
And :
1. The State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Secretary
Housing and Urban Development
Department, M S Buidling,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-560 001
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Chitradurga District
Chitradurga- 577 501
2
3. The Chief Officer
Challakere Town Municipal Council
Challakere -577 522
Chitradurga District.
4. Prajapita Brahmakumari Ishwariya
Viswa Vidhyalaya
Local Centre, Gandhinagar
Chalakere - 577 522
Chitradurga District
Rep. by its Branch Co-ordinator
Kum. B.K. Nagamani ... Respondents
(By Sri Vijayakumar A. Patil, HCGP for R1 & 2
Sri G Krishna Murthy, Adv. for R3
Sri Sampath Bapat, Adv. for R4)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the order
dated 10.1.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Chitradurga District, Chitradurga- 2nd Respondent herein
vide Annexure-E and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary hearing
in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga. The said order is impugned at Annexure-E to the petition.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the property bearing Khatha No.1281 (C) (70+72)/2 (39+27)/2 measuring 100 X 100 ft was granted in favour of the 3 father of the petitioners by the Challakere Town Municipal Council. The said grant is said to have been made on 20.06.1974 for the upset price of Rs.1,500/- and thereafter the sale certificate dated 29.09.1978 was issued in favour of the father of the petitioners. In that context, the petitioners contend that after the death of the father, the petitioners are entitled to the property. However, presently since the property has been granted in favour of the fourth respondent, the petitioner is claiming to be aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.01.2012 wherein the Deputy Commissioner has permitted the fourth respondent to pay further amounts and utilize the land for which it was granted. The case of the petitioners is that when the lands had already been allotted in favour of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners have the right to enjoy the property and the very same land could not have been granted to the fourth respondent. Though the petitioner had made claims with regard to the entry of khatha in their name, the same has not been considered and as such, the 4 petitioner claims that the right in favour of the petitioner is being defeated by the respondents.
3. Respondent No.3 as also the beneficiary of the grant i.e., respondent No.4 have filed their objection statements. The third respondent apart from denying the grant said to have been made in favour of the father of the petitioner and a sale certificate as claimed being issued, would refer to the manner in which the allotment proceedings to the fourth respondent has been made. The fourth respondent by their communication dated 20.07.1983 had sought grant of the land within the area. The said communication had been considered by the Town Municipal Council by their resolution dated 23.07.1983 and a decision was taken to allot the land to the fourth respondent. In that regard, approval of the Government was sought and by the order dated 26.05.1994, the approval was granted by the Government. However, since the fourth respondent had not immediately complied with the requirement and had not put the land for use, subsequently when the request was made, the 5 necessary payments were demanded and the order dated 10.01.2012 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Pursuant thereto, the sale certificate has been granted and the same has been registered and a rectification document has also been made. Hence, it is contended that when the procedure as required under law has been followed for the purpose of grant of land in favour of the fourth respondent and when the petitioner claims right in respect of the property without establishing that a similar procedure has been followed by the third respondent while granting the land in favour of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot claim right to the property.
4. In addition to the contention put forth on behalf of the third respondent, the fourth respondent in their objection statement have also referred to the said aspects and have further contended that the Deputy Commissioner as far back as 14.09.1984 had carried out spot inspection and on finding the land to be vacant, had proceeded further in the matter. 6
5. The fact with regard to the status of the land being vacant is not in dispute. However, the only question for consideration herein is with regard to the nature of the documents relied on by the rival parties to prima facie consider the right of the parties in a writ petition, since it is clear that the disputed questions relating to title cannot be decided. Hence, if this aspect of the matter is kept in view and the documents are perused, the only document on which the petitioner relies at present in the instant petitions is the receipt as at Annexure-A to contend that the property was considered to be allotted in favour of the father of the petitioners on 18.07.1974. That apart the sale certificate as at Annexure-B is relied on. First and foremost, the third respondent has flatly denied that there is any such resolution in their records nor such sale certificate has been issued in their favour. So far as the said document, there is serious dispute to prima facie accept the same in writ proceedings. The petitioners ought to have relied on some other document to indicate that the alleged receipt and the 7 sale certificate had been acted upon by the third respondent and subsequently the property had been assessed to tax in the name of the father of the petitioners or the petitioners or such other registered document required for the said purpose had been executed in their favour.
6. In juxtaposition to the position that the petitioner has not produced the same, a perusal of the documents produced by the respondents would indicate that a detailed procedure had been followed from the year 1983 onwards to allot the land in question to the fourth respondent. By the present impugned order, all that the Deputy Commissioner has done is, to condone the delay in utilization of the property by the fourth respondent and imposed conditions for payment and regularised the transaction which had already been approved by the Government at an earlier instance.
7. Therefore, at this juncture, no fault could be found with the impugned order dated 10.01.2012 and the same does not call for interference. If at all the 8 petitioner has any right in respect of the property, the disputed question should be agitated only in an appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
In terms of the above, the petitions are disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms