Karnataka High Court
Sri.H.R.Jagadish vs Th Town Municipal Council on 14 November, 2022
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.25583 OF 2014 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.H.R.JAGADISH
S/O LATE H.C.RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT63 YEARS,
2. SRI. H.R.SATISH
S/O LATE H.C.RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
3. SMT. H.R.DEVAKI
D/O LATE H.C.RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. SMT. H.R.CHANCHALA
D/O LATE H.C.RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
5. SMT. H.R.GEETHA
D/O LATE H.C.RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ALL ARE T/AT CINEMA ROAD,
DODDABALLAPUR,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
561203. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
DEVANAHALLI-262110,
2
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
DEVANAHALLI-262110
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NAGARAJ JAIN, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 DATED 29.03.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 29.03.2014 in Case No. zÉÃ.¥ÀÄ:PÀA.±Á/¹Dgï.15/2013-14 dated 29.03.2014 produced at Annexure-'H'; 3 b. Quash the N.O.C. dated 28.05.2011 bearing No. Case. No. zÉÃ.¥ÀÄ:JA.AiÀÄÆJ£ï(4)¹Dgï.47/2011-12 produced at Annexure'L';
c. Issue a writ or direction or orders directing the respondents to register/effect khatha in the name of the petitioners or any other writ or order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to do so under the circumstances of the case in the ends of justice."
2. Petitioners are seeking aforesaid relief contending interalia that:
2.1 That their father late H.C.Ramachandraiah had purchased immovable property bearing No.1387/1224 situated at Devanahalli Town, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District in a public auction dated 28.11.1963 for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and the said sale was confirmed and approved by the Government of Karnataka. 2.2 That respondents failed to execute deed of sale in favour of said H.C.Ramachandraiah who died on 24.05.1985 leaving behind him his wife Smt.Gowramma 4 and the petitioners as his legal heirs to succeed to his estate.
2.3 That first petitioner had filed writ petition in W.P.No.17846/1997 against respondents seeking direction to execute deed of sale in respect of the aforesaid property which was dismissed on 20.12.1995 on the grounds of delay and laches. The first petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.5559/1996 which was allowed by the Division Bench of this court by order dated 22.06.1998 directing the respondents to execute deed of sale in favour of the petitioners.
2.4 That since the respondents did not comply with the said direction petitioners initiated contempt proceedings in CCC.No.338/1999 (Civil) in which an undertaking was given by the respondents on 30.07.2001 to give effect to the direction issued in writ appeal No.5559/1996 within four weeks by executing deed of sale in favour of the petitioners. 5
2.5 That even after giving such an undertaking respondents failed to execute the deed of sale constraining the first petitioner to file yet another application in the year 2008 in the aforesaid CCC No.338/1999 upon which this court passed orders on 15.09.2009 directing the respondents to execute the deed of sale in favour of the petitioner on 19.09.2009 at 11 a.m. with direction to ACP Rural and DySP Devanahalli to be present before the concerned Sub-Registrar to ensure that deed of sale is duly executed and registered in favour of the petitioners. As there were certain typographical error in the said order of this court, the same were rectified and ultimately a deed of sale dated 26.09.2009 was registered in favour of the petitioners.
2.6 Thereafter the petitioners made application for registration of khatha and there was no response to the same. Petitioners caused issue of a legal notice dated 05.01.2010. Respondents without passing any order kept on giving evasive replies compelling the 6 petitioners to approach this court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.17593/2010 which was disposed of on 31.08.2010 directing the respondents to consider the request for change of khatha and to pass orders in accordance with law. Petitioners made their representation on 13.09.2010. The respondents remained defiant yet again constraining the petitioners to file contempt petition in CCC No.7/2011. Respondents who appeared in the said contempt proceedings came up with an order dated 15.02.2011 as per Annexure-G stating that they were not sure if the property belonged to the Municipal Council or the Revenue Department.
Hence, sought direction to the petitioner to approach Civil Court to have their right adjudicated. Based on the said submission, the contempt proceedings was disposed of.
2.7 The petitioners challenged the order dated 15.02.2011 at Annexure-G by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.30570/2012 and the said writ petition was allowed by this court by order dated 23.10.2014 7 quashing the aforesaid order of the respondents at Annexure-G and further directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of the order. Since the respondents did not comply with the said order, petitioners were compelled to file contempt proceedings in CCC No.567/2014. During the pendency of the said contempt proceedings respondent No.2 submitted that an endorsement dated 29.03.2014 as per Annexure-H has been issued on the premise that pursuant to the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.30570/2012 dated 23.10.2013 a meeting was called for in which the statement of members of Raitha Sangha, Devanahalli Government Junior College and of the Tahsildar was recorded and found that the subject property belong to the Revenue Department and the entries made in the records of the respondent No.1 was illegal and that there was no records available for the said property having been transferred to the respondent No.1 by the 8 Government. In view of the said endorsement, the proceedings in CCC No.567/2014 were dropped.
2.8 Aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement at Annexure-H issued by the respondent, the petitioner is before this court. Petitioners have also questioned a document namely a no objection letter issued by the respondent at Annexure-L dated 28.05.2011 which is issued by the respondent No.1 addressed to Police Inspector, Devanahalli in which it is stated that land bearing Sy.No.327 measuring 8 guntas and land in Sy.No.313 measuring 14 guntas totally measuring 22 guntas pertains to Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk and that respondent No.1 has no objection in respect of the said property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submitted that the endorsement in question is illegal and arbitrary and the same requires to be quashed in view of 9 the fact that the respondents themselves had executed registered deed of sale in favour of the petitioners conveying the subject property. That the said deed of sale was executed in furtherance to the orders passed in W.A.No.5559/1996 and in furtherance to the proceedings in CCC No.338/1999. Thus, the endorsement holding that the auction sale is illegal cannot be sustained. That since the sale deed executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioners is valid and subsisting, the respondent authority are bound to effect the khatha in the name of the petitioners. That it is not open for the respondent authorities to dispute the title conveyed by them in favour of the petitioners that too after the repeated orders of this court and undertaking given by them as noted above.
4. Sri. Nagaraj Jain, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 vehemently submitted that the very sale deed executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioners is one without authority as the respondent 10 No.1 had no right to convey the title in respect of the subject property as it never belonged to them. He submits that execution of such sale deed was under
duress and a grave mistake committed by the respondent No.1. He further submits that all revenue records show that the subject property belongs to the Government. He also submits that the aforesaid orders in all the writ petitions and in the contempt proceedings have been passed without the Government being party to the same as such the said orders are not enforceable against the Government. He further submits that he is intending to file a detailed statement of objections with all necessary documents in justification of his contentions.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. The present case appears to be a classic case of travesty of justice, in that, despite there being repeated 11 orders and directions issued by this court in the writ appeal, writ petitions and in the contempt proceedings referred to hereinabove the petitioners are not in a position to enjoy the fruits of the orders and directions. The respondents 1 and 2 who had contested the aforesaid writ petitions, writ appeal and the contempt proceedings, after conceding the rights of petitioners and after giving undertaking to this court, had executed deed of sale on 26.09.2009. They had not raised any objections with regard to respondents not having title over the property at any time earlier. The respondents having executed deed of sale as noted above, cannot be allowed to contend that the deed of sale executed by them in favour of the petitioners was one without authority and that it was a grave mistake.
7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 herein that the land belongs to the Government and no permission is obtained and that he is intending to file a detailed statement of 12 objections also cannot be countenanced as the said submission has already been taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.5559/1996, in its order dated 22.06.1998, which is extracted hereunder:
" Public auction with respect to the property bearing No.1387/1224 was held on 28.11.1963. Sri. H.C.Ramachandraiah became the successful bidder. An amount of Rs.3,000/- was deposited by him on 28.111963 vide Receipt No.3356. Prior to the holding of the auction, the respondent has passed resolution pursuant to which a report was submitted to the Divisional Commissioner and to the Government for the required sanction through the Deputy Commissioner by the Municipality. The Divisional Commissioner recommended and submitted the report to the Government who in turn sanctioned and approved the sale of the site in public auction."
8. Learned AGA confirms to the aforesaid sanction/permission having been obtained from the Government by the Deputy Commissioner before the sale of subject site in public auction. In that view of the matter, the objections being raised by the respondents 13 disputing their own authority to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners is unsustainable.
9. It is unfortunate, the respondents 1 and 2 being public authority having participated/contested the aforesaid writ proceedings and contempt proceedings and having executed deed of sale pursuant to the directions issued therein and in furtherance to their own undertaking given to this court, to take up such a contention at this belated stage to deny the legitimate right which was created in favour of the petitioners. The sale deed in question has been executed on 26.09.2009 by the respondent-Authority duly registered before the District Registrar, Bangalore Rural and it is admittedly subsisting till date. Needless to mention, no sooner the deed of sale was executed by the respondents, the title in respect of the property stood vested with the petitioners. Reversal of the said vesting of title of the petitioners cannot be done except by an order by a competent Court of law.
14
10. The respondent authorities having conveyed the title in respect of the subject matter in favour of the petitioners after obtaining the permission from the Government as noted above, had no right to issue communication as per Annexure-L signifying their no objection to transfer the property for the purpose of establishment of a police station.
11. In view of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter and also in view of the orders passed by this Court in earlier proceedings which have attained finality, Annexure-H and L requires to be quashed.
Hence, the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed. Order dated 29.03.2014 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-H is quashed. Similarly communication dated 28.05.2011 at Annexure- L is also quashed.
In consequence thereof, the respondents are directed to effect the khatha in the name of the 15 petitioners pursuant to the sale deed dated 26.09.2009 within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-