Karnataka High Court
V S Munireddy Since Deceased By Lrs vs The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara ... on 1 August, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
R.F.A.NO.1180/2011
BETWEEN:
V.S.Munireddy
Since deceased by L.Rs'
1. Sri.M.Ramesh Kumar
S/o late V.S.Munireddy,
Aged about 45 years
2. Sri.Raghuram Reddy
S/o late V.S.Munireddy,
Aged about 37 years
Both are residing at Vangalahalli,
Sector-1, HSR Layout,
Bangalore-560 102. ... Appellants
(By Shri.M.S.Purushotham Rao, Advocate)
AND:
The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
N.R. Square, Hudson Circle,
Bangalore-560 002
Represented by its Commissioner. ... Respondent
(By Shri.I.G.Gachinamath, Advocate)
2
This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the
judgment and decree dated 4.3.2011 passed in
O.S.NO.7132/2005, on the file of the IX Additional City Civil
Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, dismissing the suit for
declaration and permanent injunction.
This Appeal coming on for admission this day, the court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. The appellants claim to be owners in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.55/11B to an extent measuring 10 guntas and Sy.No.55/13 to an extent measuring 21 guntas with common boundaries forming a single plot situated at Haralukunte Village, Begur Taluk. It is also claimed that there is a shed on the said property for the last 20 years. Originally the land was within the jurisdiction of Haralukunte Grama Panchayath. Later, it has come within the jurisdiction of CMC, Bommanahalli. In the said land in question, a compound wall was put up when the land was under the jurisdiction of Harlukunte Gram Panchayath. Later, under CMC, Bommanahalli, it is alleged that on account of certain 3 politically motivated persons, the CMC Bommanahalli, was instigated to initiate proceedings against the appellants in respect of the property, on the allegation that it was blocking the road and therefore a notice was issued in this regard under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. However, the proceedings were short circuited and father of the appellants was called upon to demolish the construction within 3 days by notice dated 1.9.2005, in respect of which a Writ Petition was filed. This court held that notice issued to the appellants' father was in order and thereafter CMC by its order dated 9.9.2005 directed demolition of the construction put up. In that back ground, the appellants had filed the civil suit in O.S.No.7132/05 and there was an order of injunction granted against the CMC. It further transpires that the property fell under the jurisdiction of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, by virtue of change in the jurisdiction. It was sought to be contended that with the land now falling within the jurisdiction of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 were redundant . The court below had opined that there 4 was remedy of appeal against the order passed by the CMC Bommanahalli and held that the suit was not maintainable. It is against the said judgment and decree that the present appeal is filed.
3. There is no dispute that there has been a transition in the subject land as the same is now within the jurisdiction of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Therefore, in terms of Section 501-C of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, which provides that, all proceedings instituted by or against the CMC and the local authorities and any officer thereof shall be deemed o be transferred to and continued before the Corporation and be disposed of as if the local area had been included in the larger urban area and the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike would be competent to continue the proceedings initiated by the erstwhile CMC under whose jurisdiction the land in question was earlier. It follows therefore that, if the appellant is aggrieved by any order passed by the Municipality, there is an appeal remedy provided under the Act which the appellant was at liberty to invoke and the reasons of 5 the court below therefore, cannot be faulted and the appellants are hence left to their remedies. The suit, in view of the alternative remedy available to the appellants which is a statutory remedy, was not maintainable and the court below has rightly rejected the suit. Hence there is no warrant for reconsideration. The appeal is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/*