Smt Akthari Banu vs Mysore Urban Development Authority on 8 November, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Akthari Banu vs Mysore Urban Development Authority on 8 November, 2010

Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri

W.P.Nos.34138-34139110 ang 3422;-34230;'   

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI 

WRIT PETITION NOs.34138-34139/2010 (LB-RES)'"'--E,'f"-«.I""._
AND WRIT PETITION NOS.34223~34230/2010"-..jg____: S  

C/W WRIT PETITION N0.3440-4/2010

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT. AKTHARI BANU

W/O SRI MOHAMED AHMED

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,  -
HOUSE No.14--LIG, CITB ,H0..USE,.»=""' -  .
UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE -- 570 .019:_  " '

CLASSIC' EIDYU,cA;TIO'A;.; TRUST.
REGISTERED .c'HA,RI,TABLE,, TRU ST;
AT SY.No-._127, DEV'AN,QOR"V_IL'L.AGE,
MuNISHwARANAGwAR,--..UDA-YAGIRI.
MYSORE -A 570019 ._  
REPRESENTED' BY ITS PRESIDENT

 . 'CUM, ~T*RUSTEE TH"E-'1§I.?ETITIONER

 'SMT;AKT'HARI._BANU

SYI§DIVVS'i IAEI 

S/0 S>Y*ED'BASéI1:EER AHMED
AGED ABOLITAA YEARS,

; H0US'E.IN,VSY.No.127,
 'DEVANOOR VILLAGE,
  ,,'EM:3NISHwARANAGAR,
 *U,DvAYAGIRI, MYSORE - 570019

 SMT. MAHALAKSHMI
 W/O SRI NARAYANA
.. ' AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

HOUSE IN SY.N0.132,
DEVANOOR VILLAGE,



MUNISHWARANAGAR,
UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE - 570019

NAVEED PASHA

S/O MUZAMIL AHMED

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

C/O PARENT'S HOUSE N0.315,
MUNISHWARANAGAR,
UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE - 570019

SMT. KAMAR JAN

W/O JANAB AHMEDIN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
HOUSE IN SY.N0.132, 133
DEVANOOR VILLAGE
MUNISHWARANAGAR,

UDAYAGIRI,MYSoRE--SRdC197., " ' A

SMT. TARANUM ARA  '-

W/O SRI AYUB A!~'i--ME--»D SsiARFR}

AGED ABOUT 30 YE7:'--'a'R,S,_  
HOUSE IN SY.'No'_.~13'2,1*_}33._;__v 

DEVANQOR'SV'I.!3LAGE?§  " 
MuNISH'wARANA-SAR;'V,  

UDAYAGIRI, MYSoR,_":.-V  A

SMT. SHAMVEEN BAARJ  
W/O uMA.R KHAN, 

 - ._AGE._D°?ABQUT_ 38 v'EA..R_S,»

HOUSE I'P~EV'SY.AN_o.132, 133

 DE.VA-.NGvQRRVI.LLAGE

MUN~IS'HWjARAN'AGA R,
UD.AY".AGIRI,--"MYSORE -- 570019

3 SMT.4"'EAI':,uNAzISSA
'W/O SHRLANWAR PASHA

A " SjAGED,_ ABOUT 59 YEARS,

'H,Ou_S'E IN SY.No.132, 133

-  DEVANOOR VILLAGE

MUNISHWARANAGAR,

A  UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE - 570019

SMT. NAJMUNISSA
W/O JANAB SYED AJAZ



AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
HOUSE IN SY.N0.132, 133
DEVANOOR VILLAGE
MUNISHWARANAGAR,

UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE ~-- 570019  P,EfrITIO11RiE'R:Si_ _

(BY SRI X.M. JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)....Pf_f';.,, A 
AND: S  A "'

1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT ,.AUTHORITY
J.L.B ROAD, MYSORE ~-- 570 005}   A'
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIO.NE.R

2. SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD~._
NO.55,ABHYA COMPLEX, ._   
RISALDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPuR.AM,_   " 

BANGALORE -- 560.020  _    . 
REPRESENTED BY-.I«T'-S CC!MMISJS£ON~ER.._ '  A
3  '- 7 A  B'   RESPONDENTS

(BY SR1 VIVEiKA.NANDA"'F"fJR SR1 P;,.S'. MANJUNATH, » """ Al;71'OC'A'T'ES FORR-*1, SRIS. RA4Iu,PADv_OCATE FOR R-2) THESE WRIT PETITI,0NS~-.._ARE" FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THEF4.C0NST'TrUTIO__N OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE SURPRISE DEM,OLITION DRIVE CARRIED OUT BY THE R1 I'/3.'.-'SORE LIRBAN DE\i'E|..OPM.ENT AUTHORITY AS REPORTED IN NEWS PARPERSI-AN--N,ExuRE""M THE LOCAL EVENING PAPER STAR OF MY'S_ORE'~ _DATE=D--._T--u_EsDAY 26.10.2010 AND ANNEXURE M--I DECC.AN_HEP.A"LD -DATED WEDNESDAY 27.10.2010 UPON LAND NOT BELONSINY3 TO 'IT.,AS"ARBrrRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC. V'i_w.P.No.34404 Z 10:

, ..BET&'1,EE'Ci\i.;.'

7."w..':SA.\zIT'HVRArv"1 MA, W/O JAWARAIAH 'v,A{RED 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.132/133 MUNESHWARANAGAR u.DAYAc;IRI, MYSORE. PETITIONER (BY SR1 T.A. KARUMBAIAH AND MS. P.C.vINITHA, ADVOCATES) AND:

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ZANCY LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSORE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER R.E:';s"PC$!\IfD:E'i'IrT:_ _ (BY SR1 VIVEKANANDA FOR _ SR1 P.S. MANEUNATH, AD\fOCATES},& THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNf)«ERi-E--'AARTIO(OfLES'~..226".R.R}\NiEVt5':._ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI-A__ PRA'*.'.}_CE\iG To-'DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOT TO DEMOLISH THE,_H~OLisE OF THE..PE.TITIONER ' WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURETCONTEMPLATED. UNDER LAW AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ' COEAIISIG ON] PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THI.SV'D_Av., ,VTH'E~.vC~UVviJ-RT MADE THE FOLLOWING: A * W.P. Nos~.I34.1iAV3~Ei.¥3:"?t:3. 39/Iof' a'incI._u:~I.P. Nos.34223-34230/10 and heard together and are being disposed of by Cornmori "order, as they involve the same set Q.5"53._Ct5- .

the iearned counsel for the petitioners L W.FE'."i\los.V___3f+138934139/10 and W.P.NoS.34223-34230/10 Eit"':s'I.I"b.ni'itsV.ythet».-the petitioners are the owners of the iands in ..u5He further submits that their ownership is recognised Mysore City Corporation. The petitioners have been the property tax to the Said iocal body. The petitioners ﬁﬁii could not have the transaction registered because of the prohibition prevailing in the matter of registering the lands. He further submits that the petitioners have.put"lu'p.:ti*lit':.._"' _ construction. They have also made theggn»ecessary'~~a_pp'l'i»ca--tion4 V under the Al<rama--Sakrama Scheme.

3. Sri Joseph emphatically subpniits th'atV_the_: pietlitiloners' V Droperties in question are not at a|l"da'c'quijt§€iii'~bgy thAeV"Government or the Mysore Urban Developme-ngt for short). According to him .}'ha'sAé:a'r_ise_.nVTfbecause the first respondent MUDE. ~idient:i§fied the lands belonging to itself ancli'the"'*ieiV5n_ds::¥'bVelori»gi'iig private parties. He submits thatxthe show the extent of the land at Survey [\io.:32"an:d ~13-3AAb.eldnging to MUDA as nii. Therefore, tinVe'f§--rst lit/ltJE')"A"'Vhas no legally recognizable interest Q. on the :DJ;'~o perties' in. question.

g 4. xulVis."'*VFf.C.'fVinitha, the learned counsel for the petitioner ,: 'lN.Pl.Nie..,A34?iO4/10 submits that the petitioner has purchased V"T'i;..,thie1i.ipfeperty bearing Survey i\io.132/133 by a sale deed. She h'll'=._Ahas:"constructed the house and obtained the electricity a."=«ijconnection. She has even being paying the property tax regularly to the local body. She submits that the petitioner has taken the electricity connection. As the petitioner _4.!.s_f.,als_o belonging to economically backward class, the respondent . could do well by protecting the constru_c_:t.i..0g_r_I an_d"'po~s:Ses'sVion.V ofi the petitioner.

5. Sri Vivekananda, the learne'd:'counsei"aV_ppeh:3ri'n.gWforV the V respondent MUDA submits ti'ja~tg_ thenilianivcijyﬁrne-agsuring"'3"acres 35 guntas standing at 'Survey 133 was compulsorily acquirediibfy the the benefit of MUEJA from the. Kempamma. He submits even received the compensation.» of the petitioners are in a position to trace _the.i.r'--titi.eV'to any registered document. As thi¢ilrsQ;Js.i¥;.é title itse|«f"'i's"not there, the question of giving any reliefs...to,threrh.c;un"devr_j.. Article 226 of the Constitution of India .vvV...,,.,would notarisve. atj,a'll, is the submission of Sri Vivekananda. Vvisvivekananda further submits that out of 3 acres 1 acre 32 guntas is given to the Slum Clearance (respondent No.2 in W.P.Nos.34138~34139/10 and u:'_W.P.Nos.34223--34230/10). He also points out that the sale ﬁgié 7 deed (Anne><ure~A) to W.P.No.34404/10 is on ? S/-- stamp paper, which is aiso not registered. He further submits that there is no property bearing Survey No.132/133.

7. Sri S. Raju, the learned counsel for the res«p'o--nfdei:.t' No.2 in W.P.Nos.34138~34139/10 and w.P.Nos.3422.y3€34i2V3"o/iA1ios---.é * submits that no reiief whatsoever isv.s'o'ug.ht respondent No.2. He also submits that nthyeiinpetitioreeyrs. produced any document to show thatrthyey owr_1 the '-pro.p'e'rtiejs in " ' question.

8. Whether the petitioners? 'Vpf¢l).[j'ertE\\uS.y,,fa.:li,'l'o_i1tside the land standing atiﬁsurveyy 'I33, whether the lands in question beiong'Vt_othe" MUDA or to the petitioners, whether property" bearing I\io.132/133 is existing at all, etc., areal»! itheVdi.,sp«ute:d~--questions of fact, which cannot be resolved in the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. V'77__No ciinching.oiryregistered document is produced to establish that .1--.t'he::p.etitio.ners are the recorded owners of the properties in "Whether the identity of the properties are proper or it ' not,' can also not be gone into in these petitions. ii

9. In the Court's considered view the ends ofjustice would be met by passing the following order:

iii) The petitioners shall appear before the _ of the first respondent M_L_i[)A_ an_d""'p-ro_d,uce*the '* documents in support of their cawnersiinip-. i:r'»'Iith'i:f1'is-..oi'iire_* week from today.

If the Commissiorier is sat'isfi:edV"'th.at the"properties in question belong he shall not demolish«*t.he. petitionerslw°p'ifopert:ie's and shall not dispoisésevss mam thje.r_e'fro'm;"._: ' thelis. satisfied that the petitioners are ._not. the owjriers.._o'f "the properties in question and 4;'on_ the '-o,th'e'r hand, it is the MUDA, which is the oEir.iAneVAr'*«._or if finds that there are complicated title involved, he shall pass the order

---- a._cc'o~rdi ng I y.

If there are complicated question of title involved, it is necessary that the concerned parties have to approach the Civil Court. It is not advisable for the 4931:!

vi)

vii)', 9 Commissioner to decide the complicated questions of title.

If the Commissioner of MUDA passes the ordereither holding that the petitioners are not the owners properties in question or holdingijthaitgi "

complicated question of title" are is, always open to the petitioners__ order before the compet'en.t~..Civi|.'Court,1 The C0l"ﬂlTl5SSi0l'lél'"2.Qf M'Ul§Ai--:'s.hai'l._ApassCtheorder on the petitioners' cases-i(vitl'hini'v1G~«.dav§ijs.»ifr_om the date of the recei'p_.toi.the;:'pe_titio_~ners' documents in support ofth_e'i-e owntiiigthejjrdperties. The first.._V_V"respVondent MUDA and the second reAs:po.nd.ent Slum Clearance Board shall not the crisis like, demolishing the existing st'ru.cture or dispossessing the petitioners from the 'A properties in question for a period of 17 days. it ":Needless to observe that all the contentions are kept open. It is for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court, if need be and seek the appropriate remedies 85%.

10 inciuciing appropriate interim orders from the competent Civi! Court.

10. These petitions are accorciingiy disposed of. Noorder ES t0 COStS.

11. At this juncture Sri Joseph, the iearned co.;irisei.é,forr' ' petitioners submits that the house property »be,!on4'diHri§"to'4the4.'fi,fti:_, petitioner in w.i:>.iios.34138«34139/1o;an_ci'° 34230/10 is aiready demolished He,_iVp.resses"'ii'or a " it direction to the respondent MU_.DA tor-ipaiysthe.damages.4%

12. T1ée%'c:Vuestior{':;$i,f' a diiewon for the payment of damages wouid not --a_ri'se~.iin'~.aV::a~se of this nature, where the ownershipof thei4"pro'pe.rty itseitis in dispute. Be it as it may, it isaiwaysliopen '--to the"'"said petitioner to seek the relief of darn'age:;'. by constituted civil suit.

Sd/9 IUDQE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court