Sri N G Sridhar vs Sri D V Subramani on 5 January, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

Sri N G Sridhar vs Sri D V Subramani on 5 January, 2011

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

 L\V':>', '

IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE

}'.)ATED TRIS THE 591 QAY OF JANUARY, 201 1

THE if-i0N'lE-ELE MR..ms'rxc1«: RAM MOHAN A'

WRIT PETITXON Nos. 36031 3: 33760 o¥4'ef:*32{i:1f%§g3;~33   '

BEFORE

(GM-CPC] M .3  3 _ 1 _

IN WP N0. 36031./2010:

BE'1WEEN:

N G SRIDHAR

S/0. GOVINDA

AGE'. 47 YEARS __ 3.
R/AT N0. 17', ANUGRAHA  ~

DEVAKI APPA RAD LAYOUT

%m\21AMi J R'1*§:Y:\§AQAf{ V 

BANGAI;QREL>~ 560. c;-13.3 _  

... PETETI ONER

{BY M/S. CA.Ri~z3A'1*ic mix'  

V V" ' *  D*\E* 3{';'3RAwA:§i" «
* ~ _ V 3/o«,%V1:,NK_AfrARAYAPPA
AGE 33"rt_EARs

"'..__«R/p»:i_~vDE:VAsANDRA

3E«:1«{:N:I,> ABRENDA BAR

 KF§ISi*IE\TARA&APU'£{Ai\fI i?'C)E5'1'

3

E%A?'~§GA£,OEIR - E360 036.

'T  ~.3'N 5 KUSHALAPPA
 3,/0. mm: N P SUBESAEAH

MAJOR. R/AT E\/I}\NdUNA'3'H NEi.z";YA
N0. 494, 6'?" MAEN, BDA L:'~\Y()U"I'
D()§\«'{I,UR. F3AN(}AL(3i"-{E - 560 036.

VEN KA'£'§*3Si-Ti
PR{)PRl 93%?) R

.?:r3K



., " * DOMLUR. BAN€}AL€)R£; W 560 07:.

in.)

BROOKFEELD BAR AN?) I3J:3S'FAUf{AN'I'
D1€\?ASANI)R:'& E\§:\IE\E RCDAED

AYYAPPA E\EAGAR

BANGALORE ~-- 560 038.

 

EN xzaap No. 1-38?'6{}/2010;
BE'{"W'§3EN:   ._

N G SRIDHAR
s/0. GOVINDA

AGE 4:7 YEARS

R/ATN0. 1?, ANUGRMA

DEVAKI APPA RAO LAYOUE'

RAMAMUR'I'HY§\EAGAR   _    
BANGALORE W 550 0:5. V __   _   ,  £>Ia:'m'I0NER

(BY M/S. CARNATIC LAWA/S) 'V  

AND :

2 DvsiJ5BRA1x.4AA':::~_V _   ~ «
S/C). VENK?_¥i'§ARAYAFPA'* '_  *
    '
R,;'A'1'Df£'JASANv§;)RA  '
BEHENIJ £3Ri.?7EDA'BA'P._ ._ * -
KR1'sHNARAJAH3RAM Eéosii'
BAN(3:AI.OER'~.-- 360 Q33.» '

2  K13's££A:Ai>'PA
..  LATE N"-1%'_SUBi3AiAH
-  MAJOR», R/Air ME{N..}{§NA'I'FI NILAYA
' v. 3 N0. 491, ":31?" MAIN, BDA LAYOUT
 T 'V D_0v:\/§LI..3R,._I3A2\sGAL0R13: W 560 036.

3 A P R RAMA.5s'{IBRAMANIAN
25/  LA7}"E P RAMASWAMY
A§;E.44 YEARS
R/A3" N0. 495. 67"" A MAIN

. .. RESPONDEZNTS

'F'P{E*ZSE "J\1'RE'i" PE£"ITFlC)NS ARES FELKCD UNIDIFLR AR'I'IC'.I.ES

ii 'A  AND :22? ()2: 'mr~: CONS'I'I'TU'I'I{);\E or? I:NL>1.A TPRAYII'~f(} TO
 QUASH '§':»«:::: IM§--"'[,}'(}NEE) ORDERS m*.23.a0.2<>:.o PASSED ON
~ LA-ss III" AND EV EN {:33 §f38.'3,f200? CIiE§3I-3P';I,) WI'I'E~£ as T450/2()03

33%



'~.aJ

3.'./L"\_RKED AS ANNEZXU RE - A PENDING ON '.I"H".{3 FILE OF 'i'E'IE-
XXIV ADDI,. CITY CIVEL AND S§3SSION$ JUDGE, BANC}ALO_RE
CCH 6] AF'I'ER CAE,,LIN(} FOR "1'Pi{E3 RECORDS FROM THE VCQLFHI'

BEi.,OW AND 1-UL.-I",O'N YHEI SAID APPLICA'i'IONS Lr'X'S II} A'

AND GRAN?' SUCH OTI~IElR RELIEFS; AN}? ETC.  H' 'V .___

'E"'HESE§ E'E'I'I'§'EC)NS COMING ON FOR E3RL_.1*1_Ei}a-RIN:Q'~71%}-HS'f

DAY', THE COURE' MADE) 'I'E'iIE2 F'QLI,O\?'~z'I_NC3.:_'

QBQEE A _ . _ _
The rejecticm of the 13' .defendéir3_t"'s IA N'<5s,;  4

under Section 15} CPCI. and  Rtjﬁe 1(3)
CPC respedtively, by   ,_2.?>.1M0:2O10 in
().S. 1583 / 2007' ' the: .    lsnd Sessions
Judge,     in these

petiti0r1_s__    Constitution.

 p(Vét:iutio:Ii'e.r:'t'tAa;f1V;aigned as 13*' defendant' in

O.S.15_83/'Z60'?  by the 11* respondent for

'v"--vperhr1én::--ntinjutictitm in respect of the immovable ;§9r":)pé:'::t.:ies.Vbéi.ngg~..reVenue sites bearing NOSL22 and 23 of N0253 of Hoocii village. K.R.Pura.m ."-'««_ '-»H0b1i, "£--3g§11ga1i01'e South taluk, entered appear21n_ce and j ":je:s.is_t:<':ci the Ciaim by filing Writ.t,e;r1 s1;ate13'1ent interalia _,¥3.f§.r1yi_11g the claim of the plaimiiff. In the premise of V pieadiilgs of the parties, the C()'t.13"i. belew f1'2m1€d issues. K", > \ The petitmner Eieiving insti'é.ui.ed 0.8.7450/2003 Elgaillt the W respondent, in respect of the \='€I"§,«' Same was eiubbeci aiong with 0.8.1583/2007 e1n<i__'e§V--. ~ trial r:endi1ei.ec1 whence the pet.iti0r1er_¢wa5§ V DW~1 and introduced several d"0(tLi»met1té*.:i'i:1r1§ed"~.jjEi7-:

evidence, including the of records issued by fgouncii, Mahadevapura. After trial and when the "Vfei'gumer1ts, the petitioner .é1§':j'itCi{:eo'pen the case of the 181 '._"e§{é1;11iriati0';1 of additionai Witnesees :I*e4Vfi:vi'zfe:(fiJ__'revenue inspector and the Asst Revenge _0ffir_j.e'1,{e§ §\/Iahadevapura zone {BB1\/IP], to pr:e.:i:.:Aee eind' speak t6 the fiie bearing N0.586~97--98 «:9 kéitf1'a"Vregistrati0n appiication and the Vrev/em_1e--..ii1s'pet:€0r's report in respect of the suit sites. In the. "='c'1f}CiVC'E2?;7Vef.3',I',V'T:=é1(3COIHp8£flyiT1g the application it was eissertecii the pet;it_i<mer was Lmabie 13.0 locate the n VL"as:1(ieress3V----€§£" the revemie inspe<:tt0r he was transferred the CMC, Efvieihadex.-'21p1.1'ra an C1 had ret.1"red from service and was able to trace his address only two days prior t0 the filing of the appiieatiorl and t4hez'efo..r'e person was not cited as a witness at {the ti.rr1e§" ' recording ehvidemte on the side of pet.it:i--oner." " V

3. Appiieations were opposed of objections ihteralia eontertdttrigbthatt of the evidence of the pet'itioI1~er'e.e.;3tnd ﬁc'toI';Aeiti§sion of the trial and the b£ee:r§'_'.erov_sswexgamiraed.

at the stage of the ease of the to the interest of the a V"{)ir1_t11"1eht.'e_»15'\or:teht._ ' It was; s ecificall denied that the pet_1tir)_r1e':f had an application for katha r€gIS{i}:ét,10ﬂ the officers of the CMC had regi;ste;'eAdA«.the"~--St,1it schedule property in the year 1996- '7£'hat;;VV'Vthere were records in that regard.

-VAeeo.rd1ri*g'V toﬁsthe opponent at the belated stage, In the ::«.1bse:r;.ee certified copies of the records, SU.I1'1m¢:)1'}.iIIg of

-[?t:h:.f: records .or wit.11ess to speak to reeerds was ""v.gj':*ej:3d:i»::i_z1I. The tr_ia_1 court having regard to the pleadings oi' the p21'rti.es and the evidence aiready on 5 reeerci and in the absence of acceptable e,xp1aI1ation__ for the inordinate delay in filing; the appIiC'c1I:1'O1"l to the ease and summon the witness as wet} as .t:E§--e -T * file pertairiing to the property in q1.testi_on Maheidevapura, rejected the app1.i'<:aéi'.ofi's ijy impugned.

4. Learned esunse}. for_.t,he..npetiti.oneI;ti.s»etu£idid in his submission that nor the seheduie to th:e«setl_'e. tietscribe the suit schedule sites of Sy.No.47 of Hood}:

village. Thus based upon which the petitioner elaimsiitonbee ebsolute owner in possession of the scheduletiroperties did not disclose the Survey nuIz3ber_V e:3:e.ept_for khata number. Learned counsel fu;fi1«.=:r submits that the location of the sites 'are 1712:-:ith.e:"'i411 a layout duly approved and sanctioned tjuride-r' Karriataka Town and Country Pmnriing act W'-':1hc51; permittued is be diverted from e.griet1.itura.1 use u'*,t(> iionwagrietaltiireti purposes. En. adc:1i.t.ion., iearned eounsel submits that; the petitioner is not aware of the ﬁe 'R owner of .'3y.N0.47 :31" Head: Village. Aamording tathe learned counsel, except for the d0cu.m<:r1t.s AnneX1;1'1'¢'-{E and F viz?" riotice and Katha endmaezment a$__w:e1i é:i;31 :'t_a>$iv ~ paid receipta, issued by the C0mVm_i4ssicj1_1éfvii? A' Mahadevapura, tlmre are no recc31:d$_A_ t'O eT4si?a ':;li»sh the suit Schedule sites areV»Ca'1%{ed Aduit; of Hoodi Village. V ' V . b

5. Sec. 95 of the Act rnandatees diyeraion ::'(5"fV to non' agricultural of the Deputy ths Karnataka Town and mandates owners of agricu_1tura1'*«.. apply for and obtain ., perm.{s3i0n./saf1't:;01}____Qf layout plans to form layout of Sims fQ1*,1fesAidez1tial and commercial uses. Admittedly, ax1éithe1*_ of'%t;}'ie._iiw<) permissions/sanctions in respect of 1'.h;e '"s;uitA 'a<;:1ié*3cI111e properties are prociuced by the . pt3€,i{i:>n<éé:1'.. "The CMC, 'M.a11a<:ievapura. is C5'I,'1f3 of the local ' V at..1iho1*i1,i<és5 c0nstii',ut,<:d ur1dar the Karraataka "W§\fh..;ni':éip2i1if;ies Act; havirzg no juris<1ict.ie:>11 e:it;he:"' ta accord permiesion to ciivert: agrieiiitural £2/.1nds__ or sanction layout plains. Lands in Sy.Nc>.4~7 e0nti{n1:e«--._t€>_ be agrieu1tL1.rai Iand 5-mbjettt. to payment. of iariéi -. * L1ndei* the Kariiataika Lalici R€V€IiT;1'€"15\{','t, the territoriai jurisdiction. of the T is no nothing to indicate of an identifiable survey vm1zinber;"" t

6. Be that as it that every the local authority/ "Katha riurnbers"

without; reeords relating to either COI1VEI'SiOIi".§)1' which the site Could be %.den.ti}.fieci'~.:i:1d 1.0e.ated with reference to survey numbers. '1' _aee0rdiii'g to me is a pernicious practice meant to subvert 1a2izL'.21i:»:d organised cievefopment of urban areas. k_,.., [I am edrnpelled to say so beeauee large nu:'n§:<;~3';'? of ..fe0iOr1.i.:3:erS of immovable properties in and around Béggrigaiore City, mostly being agi*iCuIt.i1ra1 lands, t1I'I(3C)1E"1\-?'€}f"C'€€TI and withniii: s3.r1e.tic)n of iziyeut piani hand in glow: with t.1"1c:% ioeai auth0rit:.ie&3 emd. enrporaiierisa, in 9 grove Violation of Rule of law and contrary to arid Causing; ioss of reverntie to the state, have denied_'j'the,A State treasury of its legitimate dues, a matter ' {)O1']C€'I'I1 over which the State done M"\feV:'ﬁy' iitiplel dispute judgments of this court.

7. In the aforesaid is the petitioner/defendaizys 'the sites in question are carved outof village, is deceptive and:.,faif:V the said document does'not covenant that the Petitioner having full knowledge"'*of the proposed witness was an offiee1i'of'~CI\/EC'; "Mahat1eVapura did not at the earliest point' ofvt:in1ed"wi"1i1e recording his side of evidence, cite him.'-as o*n«'¢--..(5fV'iiie witnesses in the list of witnesses 'V xvhiefi have ﬁled in accordance with CPC. Mere "..:ist.ate-:1iei'i"t in the affidavit accompanying the application "i«.--'tI_A1g1t iie had no knowledge of the whereabouts of the '".prop0sed witness at the ieievarit time eaniriot be justifieaiioii not to name that person as a witness when . x., .2 S V' 'zrejected.

E 0 required to do 30. Material pa.1:*t:ic:u1ars and dates ever the alleged regis'i.rati0:n and spot inspeetmn by tI11eer§i7fi[t:~e ef the CMC, pertaining to the sites are ram. fc}41'1--.h:tAe'i':é.i'r2g'f'= 1 * In my capinion the E1V€I"'I'1"1(31"i'{.S in~*th.e.éafﬁdaﬁiriett.'}ziek_j«ir1'., V bonafides and do not instiil the court.

8. in the C'e.y1rt .'be1--e.w sagas fuliy justified in rejecting the case to examine produce the records In my opi.nio1;:.V,' no ' be taken to the reasons, findings amjl Veoritl3,{sVi.0ne§éi"_.»ai'rived at by the court below. V_»:'5*.:1;n__ ihve re's'u.1fe......petition being devoid of merit is S3/'"

EUSGE " 1:3,.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court