Shri Naagesh Rao S/O Late Hanumanth Rao vs The Commissioner Bangalore Mahanagara ... on 13 January, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Naagesh Rao S/O Late Hanumanth Rao vs The Commissioner Bangalore Mahanagara ... on 13 January, 2009

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

  Tcompezent Oﬁcer),

  V     N.R.Square,
' A Kﬁangalorc -- 560 002. ...RESPONDEN'l'S

IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT BANG«AL.t;2§B
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY 01?  5  

THE HONBLE MR. JUS'1'ICE A.;I_'fi'~  
WRIT PETITION NO;'8E33y6/22:0§)6(§3I\fI%iEfI9}...  A
1 BETWEEN :  % 

Shriﬁaagesh-Rae  '  r
S/o.1ate Hz-;u1um9£1 Ran,   _  '
Aged about 45 yca,m_,_  1 
Presently r/at #18',  _ .   
Flat No.8---R, Mc:del_TdWi3., J A 

    % ...PE'I'1'I'IONER

(By Sx~i;Qd:s;i1ok'B;1%'éL.!:ii, 

AN D : '

Ma 
PaiiAk'e.. 'N.R..SqUa:re,
Bangaiorc.  002.

V' .(Ad111i1j1istr'aticn &

-§i3a'ngalorc Maha1%

{By Sriﬁandcep Patil, Adv. for
Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, Adv.)



 '   have a checkered career and

éiriees   manner:

_ V V' 051"' §.A:V2V00t;_a'.1es1:io11 i.e., bwring Mmﬁcipal Katha Old No.1-A,
   Iséew No.2, Davis Road, ad measuring 132 feet x 121 feet

 from one Mrs. Mary Martha Naronha, pursuant to a

-2-

This writ petition is ﬁled under Articies 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set«~
aside the order dated 31.03.2006 passed by the  of
the V1 Add}. City Civil Judge (con-11),  'City
in M.A.No.'73/2000, (Annexuzre 'S')  "   

This writ petition com.mg' on for  :.'aﬁ it    

this day, the Court made the follojyisrlg: -- '
ORDER 0'

The petitionw is queetiopﬁlﬁ     v

the learned    appeal No.
73/2000,    09*' respondent -

Mama? Palike, H V li V V the Karnataka Public Occupants Act, 1974 (for fsianrt 0' fema of the petitioner purchased the property registered sale deed dated 31.03.1969. Incidentally, it ﬂ J inter alia eentending that the property and they are entitied ta Incidentany, the said suit was re- % L : 0.S.No.1()349/1988. The said suit was pursuant to judgment and deenee dated

-- 1991, copy of which is produced at Annexure 'F'. 1: is to be noeoed that during the mum of the .3 ..

is to be neﬁced that the mltine area measured about 4 acres and odd and in the said 4 acres, 4 blocks:

formed and each block was given a property in question would fall _--Ni).' 1: " " 2 to the Iespondents. Be that as kit claiming title to started i3;1terferu1g' with the ' me petitioners father was C>.S.No.88/ 1976 agams' t court of Munsiﬁ',

3. entered appearance and judmaent, the learned Trial Judge recorded a ﬁnding that it is the peti'e'oner's father, who was in possession /I;

if ] £~£'43v;':Vi3§5§¥1V§:9,? '1996. The said Special Leave to Appeal was certain observation. The Apex Court " ' F£:stly, it may be noted that the suit was " forperpetual alone. Seoondiy, -4- but however, made an observation that the does not have title to the property. said judgment and decree, the .. :

ﬁled R.F.A.No.150/1992. As made by the Iearned pet:itione:r's famer ﬁled appeal ﬁled by the ago in the appeal ﬁled the " was clarﬁied and the Trial Judge that Q vnot have title to the pmperty, H o Aggieved by the said judgme&nte' respondents preferred an Court in Civil Appeal thus:

thedeletianofthesaidobsemationqfthe fiﬁal Court by the High Court does not metmthateithertheHighCourtortheTrial # ( amruzas rejected or cyﬁrrrzed the title the p1az'nt;';§'.' In the circumstarwes, 7 enough to clan')? that in any _ proceedings taken by the AL « any ﬁxture proceedings by them, neither the E of the Trial Court mg be construed as4'fé¢aa-4dir}g:' f on the =Iuest1~=vt% of W my wsmy them in am: on their awn 4V;"«I:v'1cic1Ve1*:tgi1:3;j,i,.bit*~"tci be noticed that armed with the _ 'bf leamcd Trial Judge, the V' issued a Show cause notice as the Act. The said show cause was: In the year 1992. A reply was sought by the petitioner's father indicating that there _ éeriaus dispute as regard to the title of tin property _;n.§asmuch as the pettnoneﬁs father hw purchawd the ' pmperty ﬁmn the erstshile owner, who derived title ﬁ'om their vendors. The said reply was re-aﬁmcd but ﬂ . é_ .fat11eI" 'a bonaﬁde purchaser. He further févhen there is a serious dispute reganding V ecivil Court but not in a proceeding of this . ?Mr.Ashok Haranahani, for the coxporaeon would /2 -5- however, subsequent to the re-afﬁrmation, ._did not ﬁnd favour with the Estate Omcer eviction. In the mean time, the and the pmceedings were He ﬁled an appeal before ;t1'1e f . The learned District Judge dic1 ;1oi the question of title but' _that the order passed by the Hence, this' Writ:

5.; counsel appearing for the there is a serious dispute regarding title .tC= property inasmuch as the is required to be thrashed out and

6. Mnsandeep Patil, learnw counsel appearing for . .;nade'Hoy the learned counsel appearing for I ' well as the respondents.

v«i%p*;9p19e«Ap.P1ot No.1 in Block No.1 was sold in favour of one " Mr.(Mrs.)I)uneen. The said Duneon sold the property 'm V . favour of one Mr.R.Oookson and Mrs. Cookson. The said .7...

strenuously contend that initially, the entire measure about 4 acres and it was blocks. He further submits of K V' 2 was numbered as Site No.1, Wes sold pp Duncan by the Corpo1*aﬁ'O1§€V;_,:_"'-T2130 to:t__1a:*11_ﬁ'e Ls«:..;st:s1c3 it fo p another person and various place and later the of was one Mary Martha it is only in the Last "~.B1oe§£_: is changed. Hence, he . and predecessor are and the Act is applicable.

7.. _I heve,' mp anxious consideration to the ' It ﬁs not in "dispute that way back in the year Cooksons sold a portion of the said property to one ﬂ

-3.

Mr.C.V.Chadwic pursuant to another deed. The said Mr.C.V.Chadwic sold it in Mary Martha Namnha, who wagin _P2ct'* . No.8 in Block No.1. Incidentalljt, it:'i::.. the petJ'.tioner's father 2 L' to a rcgstcred sale dced Mrs. Mary Martha

9. Izzdezcd v.ofcTM;:~.sandeep Patil, learned is to be accepted inas1:t:j.'iicﬁ was sold in favour of Dunccia. is in respect of plot No.1 in Block, No. I" sa}c- deeds, there is = i1it.. thCH numbers, that would certainly evidence in support of their respective inasmuch as Mr.Ashok B.Pati1, learned for the petitioner submits that he has f"va1iei.A'.%'tit1e to the property and he has derived it umugn in Whose favour, the Corporation had parted with the property pmsuant to a reéstered sale deed. Since there is serious dispute as to the location and W kg: iseaasotezo be noticed max: when all things ee:ftai.r1:'..A.;'i1asmuch as the title to the property is d e occu£pazeo;1;etuue Public Premises Act would come into ' W H K tvould be made applicable. But however, in 'V 'gees set of circumstances, since the title to the either in favour of the petitioner ea' in favour of u A. the respondents is feet in antiquity, the Corporation /g -9- identity of the property, indeed Whether it No.1 or Block No.4, either of the parties establish their title to the also to be noticed that the Petitioner's father was on" ' L' evidence, it was fouad who was in possessiont aspect of the matter is to bgtia Court having regard to of the parties in suppo_rt "of I am of the View me "by the Estate Oﬁcer as District Judge is liable to be the said property is in unauthorised /-'"

-10..

having parted with the property Without havigﬁg icss than a century ago, the entire gamut is decided in a Civil court. Consequently,"

is passed: I V

(a) Petition stands

(b) The ilnpugned ord,éz§$'at and 'P' passed by. asiivéii-B as the learned

:@ya@@$@w¢qnmmeﬁmmsamudmngam is only for the pmiposc of V _ petition and shall not weigh Wiifil Court if, any proceedings are 'A i' _ by either of the parties. 'ii issued and made absolute. sd/~'~.

Tudge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court