Karnataka High Court
Smt Ameena Khatoon @ Noorjan Jan vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.902/2010(LB-RES)
BETWEEN
1 SMT AMEENA KHATOON @ NOORJAN JAN
W/O AHMED KHAN,
AGED 60 YEARS,
AT PROPERTY BEARING NO.413 & 413/1,
M.M.ROAD, SYED WADI,
A DIVISION, WARD NO.18,L CHANNAPATNA.
2 SRI. AHMED KHAN
S/O LATE HYDER KHAN,
AGED 75 YEARS,
AT PROPERTY BEARING NO.413 & 413/1,
M.M. ROAD, SYED WADI,
A DIVISION, WARD NO.18, CHANNAPATNA
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri : C R GOPALASWAMY & ASSTS, ADV. )
AND :
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE.
2 THE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
CHANNAPATNA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2
3 AHMADULLA KHAN SAHEB,
W/O LATE SUBHAN KHAN,
AGED 90 YEARS,
R/AT PROPERTY BEARING NO.414,
M.M. ROAD, SYED WADI, A DIVISION,
WARD NO.18, CHANNAPATNA.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : C SHANKAR REDDY FOR S.CHANNARAYA REDDY,
ADV FOR C/R3;
SRI. M.KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 )
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 31/10 DATED 09/02/10
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. NO.31/2010 dt.9.2.2010 is called in question in this appeal.
2. The short question that arises for our consideration in this Writ Appeal is the powers of City Municipal Council, in altering the measurement of the property of the appellants with that of the respondent No.3. According to the appellants based on the 3 representation of the appellants, the City Municipal Council, vide Annexure-Y to the Writ Petition issued an endorsement showing the measurement of the property of the appellant. According to them, two properties were purchased by them, they were adjoining to each other. In the sale deed executed in their favour the measurement of the property was not shown. However, the boundaries were shown since the property was in occupation of a tenant an HRC Petition had also been filed and in the HRC petition the boundaries were shown. Accordingly, the eviction order was obtained and tenant was evicted based on the measurement in the schedule. Relying upon the same, an application came to be filed by the appellants to record the measurement in the Register maintained by the Municipality as if the appellants are in possession of 65 ft x 82 ft and respondent-3 filed his objections. The Municipality has given its finding holding that the appellants are in possession of 88 ft x 73 ft. Accordingly, measurement were recorded in Annexyure-Y. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition came to be filed by the 3rd respondent. The Learned Single Judge having heard the counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the 2nd 4 respondent - City Municipal Corporation, Channapatna has exceeded its jurisdiction in recording the measurement relying upon the Judgment in HRC Eviction Petition and the schedule given thereto and further held that it is amounting to deciding the title by a Civil court. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge held such an order is impermissible and the same is required to be considered by the Civil Court. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition came to be allowed. The order of the 2nd respondent came to be set aside directing the appellants to approach the Civil Court for their redressal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed.
3. Admittedly, in the sale deed obtained by the appellants, the measurement of the properties are not shown. If it is not shown, the Municipality cannot decide the measurement of the property of the appellants. Such disputes can be adjudicated only by the Civil Court and if the neighbors have no objection and by virtue of such consent, if the Municipality has recorded the measurement of the properties of adjoining owner, the matter is different. When the adjoining owner is disputing the rights of the appellants to the extent claimed by them, such 5 dispute can be adjudicated only by the Civil Court not by any Revenue Authorities. Therefore, we do not see any merits in this appeal.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak