Sriram Soundararajan vs State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sriram Soundararajan vs State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2022

Bench: R Devdas

                           -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

        WRIT PETITION NO.10026 OF 2022 (LR)

BETWEEN

SRIRAM SOUNDARARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O SRI K.V. SOUNDARARAJAN,
NO.504, BLOCK E, POWER WELFARE SOCIETY,
7 HILLS (OPP. KFC KOKAPET),
NARASINGI, HYDERABAD - 500 089.
TELANGANA STATE.
                                          ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PUTHIGE R RAMESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SMT.LAKSHMI E., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
      REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
      BENGALURU - 560 009.

3.    BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE
      BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
      N.R.SQUARE,
      BENGALURU-560002.
                                -2-


4.   THE VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING
     CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
     BY ITS PRESIDENT,
     NO.35, RATHNAVILAS ROAD,
     BASAVANAGUDI,
     BENGALURU - 560 004.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    SRI.B.S.SATYANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN
THE R1 TO 3 FROM INITIATING OR CONTINUING WITH ANY
ACTION U/S 79 B OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT,
1961 IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE SITE AND ETC.,


       THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri.B.S.Sathyanand, learned counsel has entered appearance for respondent No.3-Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

-3-

Notice to respondent No.4 is not necessary, since this writ petition is being disposed of only in respect of prayer No.2 regarding the katha of the petitioner in the BBMP.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has furnished a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.26335/2012 and connected matters dated 30.03.2022 filed by Dr.K.Shankara Prasad and B.Krishna Bhat and Others in respect of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. As could be seen from the said order, this Court took note of the Savings clause in the amendment Act as it was amended in the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020. Having regard to the Savings clause provided under Section 12 of the amended Act, this Court held that in terms of the said provision, since the writ petitions were pending consideration before this Court, the proceedings initiated by the competent authority, under Sections 79A, B and C stood abated. Consequently, the -4- impugned orders passed by competent authority namely, the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub Division in proceedings bearing No.LRF(83)336/1997-98 dated 18.09.2001 and the order of the Karnataka Appellate Authority in Appeal No.610/2001 dated 26.06.2012 were quashed and set aside.

3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner's mother, having purchased a site in the layout formed by the land owners, is before this Court aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent-BBMP in not transferring the katha in the name of the petitioner from the name of his mother. However, learned counsel for respondent No.3-BBMP submits that on going through the memorandum of writ petition, it is found that no specific averment is made by the petitioner that he has filed an application seeking transfer of katha. Learned counsel submits that there are no documents filed along with the -5- writ petition to show that an application was indeed filed by the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the averment made in the memorandum of writ petition that the revenue officials of BBMP are not entertaining the application of the petitioner.

5. Though there are other prayers made in the writ petition which pertains to the proceedings initiated under Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, however, the petitioner does not press the said prayer and this writ petition is entertained only in respect of the prayer of the petitioner regarding the katha to be registered in the office of the BBMP.

6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is no reason for the respondent-BBMP officials not to entertain -6- an application at the hands of the petitioner seeking transfer of katha from the petitioner's mother, who is since dead, and it is the contention of the petitioner that he has inherited the property.

7. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the concerned Assistant Revenue Officer of the BBMP to receive the application at the hands of the petitioner who is seeking transfer of katha from the name of his mother to himself. The Assistant Revenue Officer shall consider the application on its merits and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the application which would be filed by the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE rv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court