Karnataka High Court
V Adinarayanappa vs The Commissioner on 21 June, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WP No.34085/2016 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN
V. ADINARAYANAPPA
S/O SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.222, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
DWARAKANAGARA I.A.F. POST
YELAHANKA
BANGALORE - 560 063. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI DANAPPA P PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 002
2. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHATH BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
GOVINDARAJA NAGARA SUB DN.
DR. AMBEDKAR STADIUM
60 FT ROAD,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 79
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Date of order : 21.06.2017 in WP No.34085/2016
V. Adinarayanappa
vs.
The Commissioner, BBMP and others
.
2/5
SANKEY ROAD
BANGALORE - 20. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. A.M. VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. S. GANGADHAR AITHAL, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APLICANT ON IA 1/16)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-2 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE
ANNEXURE - G DATED 04.02.2016 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr. Danappa P. Panibhate, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, Adv. for R1 & R2; Mr. A.M. Vijay, Adv. for R3;
Mr. S.Gangadhar Aithal, Adv. for impleading applicant on IA 1/16)
1. This petition has been filed by Mr.V.Adinarayanappa, S/o. Mr. Venkataramanappa claiming to represent as Power of Attorney Holder of the grand sons of the deceased Dharmaraju, S/o late V. Masanna, against whom, the respondent-Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, Bengaluru has issued the impugned endorsement dated Date of order : 21.06.2017 in WP No.34085/2016 V. Adinarayanappa vs. The Commissioner, BBMP and others .
3/5 04.02.2016 (Annexure-G), upon their representation dated 08.12.2014 for change of khatha entries in their favour to the effect that, they must obtain appropriate decree from the competent Civil Court in respect of the ownership of the said property in question.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Danappa P. Panibhate has urged that, to represent the cause of the said grand sons of the deceased Dharmaraju, the petitioner, as the General Power of Attorney Holder has filed this petition, aggrieved by the endorsement dated 04.02.2016 (Annexure-G).
3. Mr.S.Gangadhar Aithal, learned counsel for the impleading applicants has filed I.A.No.1/2016 on behalf of the applicants, Mr. B. Shanthilal, Mr. B. Santosh, Mr.B.Mahaveer and Mr.B. Surendra seeking impleadment in the present case, on the basis that they are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the said property in Date of order : 21.06.2017 in WP No.34085/2016 V. Adinarayanappa vs. The Commissioner, BBMP and others .
4/5 question. He submits that thus there are contrary titles set up for the same property
4. Learned counsel for the impleading applicants has also brought to the notice of this court that, the endorsement dated 04.02.2016 at Annexure-P9, a copy of which was even endorsed to the present impleading applicants and he submits that the petitioner has deliberately not impleaded these applicants as respondents in the present petition. The learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP has supported the impugned endorsement.
5. Having heard the learned counsels, this court is satisfied that there is no illegality in the impugned endorsement. The khatha entries are only consequential entries, depending upon the title of the property in question. The grand sons of deceased Dharmaraju, S/o. Late V. Masanna are required to establish their title by Date of order : 21.06.2017 in WP No.34085/2016 V. Adinarayanappa vs. The Commissioner, BBMP and others .
5/5 inheritance of the said property in question, before they could ask for a change of khatha entries in their favour. Much less, a Power of Attorney Holder representing their cause can claim such right to get khatha entries recorded in their favour. Unless, the cloud over the title of the property is cleared by the decree of a competent Civil Court, the Assistant Revenue Officer of the respondent- BBMP cannot be said to be at fault at all in not modifying the khatha entries in favour of the grand sons of deceased Dharmaraju.
6. The present writ petition is misconceived. The same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2016 is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST/BVK