Karnataka High Court
Sri. K Ramaraj Urs S/O Late V Kempraj Urs vs The Deputy Commissioner on 19 March, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.33605/2010 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K RAMARAJ URS
S/O LATE V KEMPRAJ URS
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O NO 631/591, KOTE 25TH WARD,
KODIHALLI ROAD,
KANAKAPURA TOWN AND TALUK
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G S BALAGANGADHAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT
RAMANAGARAM
2. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
KANAKAPURA TOWN
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT
3. SMT T K SHOBHA
W/O LATE B K VENUGOPAL RAJE URS
R/AT NO 962, 7TH MAIN,
3RD STAGE, DOCTORS CORNER
GOKULAM, MYSORE
4. SMT B.V. HARSHITA
D/O LATE B K VENUGOPAL RAJE URS
W/O SRI RAJU MAGAJI
R/AT NO 55, 2ND MAIN
2ND CROSS, J P NAGAR 3RD STAGE,
NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE
MYSORE
2
5. KUMARI B V SUPRITA
D/O LATE B K VENUGOPAL RAJE URS
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
6. KUMARI B.V. CHAITRA
D/O LATE B K VENUGOPAL RAJE URS
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
5 & 6 R/AT NO.962, 7TH MAIN
R/AT NO 962, 7TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
DOCTORS CORNER
GOKULAM MYSORE
5 & 6 BEING MINORS
REP. BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN i.e. 3RD
RESPONDENT SMT. SHOBA
SMT T K SHOBHA
W/O LATE B K VENUGOPAL RAJE URS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO 962, 7TH MAIN
3RD STAGE, DOCTORS CORNER
GOKULAM, MYSORE ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA R KAMADOLLI, HCGP FOR R1
M/S. KUMAR & KUMAR, ADVS. FOR R2
SRI G V SHASHI KUMAR, ADV. FOR
M/S. INDO LEGAL INC FOR R3 TO 6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT, THE FIRST
RESPONDENT HEREIN PASSED DATED 6.10.2010 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-K AS THE SAME IS IMPUGNED, PERVERSE AND
CAPRICIOUS AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE & ORDER TO
RESTORE THE KHATA OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN THE
NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RECORDS OF THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, TOWN MUNICIPALITY, KANAKAPURA.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
3
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.10.2010 which is impugned at Annexure-K to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to restore the khatha of the schedule property in the name of the petitioner in the records of the second respondent-Town Municipality, Kanakapura.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property bearing No.631/591 situate at 25 th Ward, Fort, Kodihalli Road, Kanakapura Town, Ramanagara District. The property originally belonged to his brother B.K.Venugopala Raje Urs, who has bequeathed in his favour under a WILL dated 12.03.2008. In that regard, the petitioner has sought for change of revenue entries in respect of the said property, on the death of his brother and the WILL coming into force. The respondents No.3 to 6 who are the legal representatives of the deceased Venugopala Raje Urs claim to have succeeded to the said property. Hence, they have disputed the WILL and they 4 contend that they are entitled to the said property and therefore, the revenue entries made in the name of the petitioner is not justified. In that regard, the private respondents have filed a petition in Mun.R.P.No.7/2008-09 under Section 322 (1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. The Deputy Commissioner on considering the said revision has by the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 arrived at the conclusion that the revenue entries made is not justified and has set aside the same. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would at the outset point out that certain observations made by the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the WILL and the probate not being obtained in that regard is not justified and therefore, the conclusion ultimately reached by the Deputy Commissioner is not justified.
4. In that regard, having perused the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner, it appears as if the Deputy Commissioner is seeking to decide the civil rights 5 of the parties. While disposing of the revision petition, such power is not available to the Deputy Commissioner and observation in that regard are not sustainable. The validity or otherwise of the WILL and the rights of the parties can only be considered by a competent Civil Court as held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of C.N.Nagendra Singh vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner & ors (ILR 2002 Kar 2750). If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, notwithstanding the fact that the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner are not justified, the ultimate conclusion in any event cannot be faulted i.e., for the reason that the revenue entries effected by the authorities based on the WILL cannot be accepted at this juncture, when the WILL is being contested by the private respondents herein. In any event, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.348/2010 which is pending consideration before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Ramanagar. Hence, the right to the property in any event would be decided in the said suit. Therefore, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to thereafter approach the revenue 6 authorities depending on the result of the suit.
5. Until disposal of the suit, a direction is issued to the respondents to incorporate the details of the suit in O.S.No.348/2010 which is pending relating to the subject property in the revenue registers. Such entry shall be made on the request being made by the petitioner by filing an application with the second respondent.
With the said observations, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms