Karnataka High Court
V G Venaktesh @ Venkateshgowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2022
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
WP No. 3071 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 3071 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
V.G. VENKATESH @ VENKATESHGOWDA
S/O LATE. VENKATARAMENEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT HUBBANAHALLI VILLAGE
SANTHEBACHALLI HOBLI
K.R. PETE TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGARAMU V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN PANCHAYATH OF K.R. PET
K.R. PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 571 426.
3. MR. NADAGOWDA
S/O LATE BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SHOP NO.1, SHARANU AGRO CENTRE
JAYANAGARA EXTENSION
MYSORE MAIN ROAD
-2-
WP No. 3071 of 2022
K.R. PET TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. AKSHATHA R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.S. BHAT & ASSOCIATES FOR R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ASSESSMENT NO.3528, PASSED BY THE TOWN MUNICIPALITY,
KR PET, MANDYA DISTRICT/R2 WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY
BELONGS TO R3 HEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING PID 2-538-3 THE SAME IS
ALLEGEDLY SITUATED AT JAYANAGARA LAYOUT, IN
KRISHNARAJA PET, MANDYA DISTRICT, TO THE ALLEGED LAND
MEASUREMENT TA 14.02 X 10.96 METER AND TO THE ALLEGED
CONSTRUCTION MEASUREMENT 10.02 X 8.02 METER COPY AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs;
"1. To set-aside the Assessment No.3528, passed by the Town Municipality. K.R. Pet, Mandya District/Respondent No.2 Which is allegedly belongs to Respondent No.3 herein, in respect of the alleged immovable property bearing PID:2-538-3, the same is allegedly situated at Jayanagara Layout, in Krishnaraja pet, Mandya District to the alleged land measurement TA 14.02X10.96 meter, and to the -3- WP No. 3071 of 2022 alleged construction measurement 10.02X8.02 meter, copy at Annexure -"A".
2. Call for the records and allow the petition with cost and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity".
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the land bearing Sy.No.264/1 measuring 5½ Guntas under a deed of sale dated 12.06.1996 as per Annexure-B. That on 20.08.2002, the petitioner obtained an order for change of land usage from the Assistant Commissioner, Pandhavapura as per Annexure-C and formed 4 residential sites in the said land. The petitioner sold 3 sites and retained one for himself. The respondent No.3 has purchased the site bearing No.3528 in question under deed of sale on 22.05.2014 as per Annexure-H. That site retained by the petitioner and the site purchased by Respondent No.3 are different. However, Respondent No.3 concocted documents to illegally grab the property of the petitioner. That for the alleged interference and disturbance caused by the respondent No.3 in to the property of the petitioner, he has filed a suit in -4- WP No. 3071 of 2022 O.S.No.612/2014 before the Civil Court, K.R.Pet and as the same is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, respondent-authorities have assessed the property of the respondent No.3 for the purpose of payment of tax and have issued the katha.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 taking undue advantage of the boundary shown in the sale deed is claiming the property belonging to the petitioner. That the petitioner being aggrieved by the assessment order made by the respondent No.2 has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District under Section 306(1) of the Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 29.10.2021 on the premise that there is a pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner requiring determination of the dispute between the parties and till such time authorities concerned would not proceed with the matter. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court. -5- WP No. 3071 of 2022
4. Sri. Rangaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that it is incumbent upon the respondents- authorities to verify the documents before assessing the property and issuing the katha in his name. Since the respondent No.3 has encroached upon the property of the petitioner on the northern side of his property, respondent No.2 ought not to have issued the katha. Hence seeks for allowing of this petition.
5. Sri. G.M.Anand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 justifying the order of assessment submits that the assessment has been made based on the sale deed furnished by the respondent No.3. It is submitted that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 that has to be resolved before the competent court of law and in that regard the petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S.No.612/2014 and the same is pending consideration. He submits that order of assessment made in the matter would be subject to the outcome of the suit pending consideration. -6- WP No. 3071 of 2022
6. Smt. Akshatha R, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the katha and the assessment made in favour of the respondent No.3 is in accordance with law based on the deed of sale, under which the respondent No.3 has purchased the property and there is no illegality or infirmity in registration of katha in the name of respondent No.3. Hence, she seeks for dismissal of the petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that originally property measuring 5½ guntas belonged to the petitioner herein, who formed 4 sites and had alienated 3 sites and retained one site with him. It is his contention that respondent No.3 who appears to be subsequent purchaser taking undue advantage of the description given in the schedule to the sale deed intended to put up construction encroaching upon the property of the petitioner, which allegation is totally denied by the respondent No.3. The -7- WP No. 3071 of 2022 dispute in this regard is also admittedly pending consideration before the Civil Court in O.S.No.612/2014. Suffice to state that there is a dispute with regard to the proprietary rights of the parties in respect of their respective immovable properties which requires, determination in accordance with law. The revenue- authorities cannot be expected to adjudicate the dispute. The assessment is merely for the purpose of collection of revenue and would not vest any title over the property. The petitioner would always be at liberty to seek appropriate orders at the hands of the respondents in respect of assessment of katha as the case may be after disposal of the aforesaid suit. It is made clear that order of assessment of katha made by the respondent No.2 impugned in this writ petition is subject to outcome of the said suit.
With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE RU