Karnataka High Court
Sri.B.Ramaiah vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 10 April, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 9283 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 9283 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI.B.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O BETTAIAH,
R/@ NO.78, 3RD MAIN,
SANJEEVANI NAGAR,
MOODALAPALYA,
NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CORPORATION OFFICES,
N.R.SQUARE, J.C.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Digitally signed
by 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
(GAALI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE) SUB-DIVISION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1ST FLOOR, BBMP SWIMMING POOL
KARNATAKA BUILDING, 9TH CROSS ROAD,
HAMPINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.08.2015 IN NO.
D.A.132/PR:434/2015-16, ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
-2-
WP No. 9283 of 2016
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order quashing the endorsement dated 05.08.2015 in No. D.A.132/PR:434/2015-16, issued by the Second Respondent which is at Annexure-A;
b. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the Respondents to transfer Khatha in the name of the Petitioner and also to collect the taxes pertaining to the schedule immovable properties;
c. Cost of the Petition.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the owner of the property the katha has not been made out in the name of the petitioner resulting in the petitioner not being able to utilizes the property more effectively.
3. Sri.Pawan Kumar., learned counsel for the corporation submits that there is a suit in OS No.3585/1999 which is pending wherein declaration of ownership has been sought for and -3- WP No. 9283 of 2016 since there are disputes as regards the property in question, the corporation is unable to take any action. Apart from that, he submits that the petitioner has also filed a suit in OS No.5808/2012 for injunction which is also pending.
4. Sri. B.V.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the said suits are pending before the same Court and both of them have been clubbed.
5. It is rather shocking that the suit of the year 1999 has been pending for the last 24 years without resolution. The contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation that due to the pendency of the above suit no action could be taken for transfer of katha is proper and reasonable. However, taking into account the long pendency of the suits the concerned Court in VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSINS JUDGE (CCH-19) is directed to dispose of OS No.3585/1999 and OS No.5808/2012 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of -4- WP No. 9283 of 2016 six months from the date receipt of copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of.
6. The submission of the counsel that they will co-operate with the Court for expeditious disposal and not seek for an unnecessary adjournment is placed on record.
Sd/-
JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59