Karnataka High Court
C R Ravindra Kumar vs The Directorate Of Muncipal ... on 1 April, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
W.P.NO.43828 OF 2011 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
C.R.RAVINDRA KUMAR
SON OF C S RAJAGOPAL SETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.11
MIG-II, 3RD STAGE
KHB COLONY, KALKUNIKE
HUNSUR TOWN
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD SR.COUNSEL FOR M/S
RAJENDRA PRASAD ASSTS., ADVS.)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTORATE OF
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR
VISHVESHWARAIAH MAIN TOWER
BANGALORE - 560 001
BY ITS DIRECTOR
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HUNSUR TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT
3. SMT.FATHIMABI
WIFE OF LATE VAZIR SAB
AGE: MAJOR
RESIDENT AT NO.1855
BRIDGE MOHALLA, HUNUR TOWN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.MANJULA R KAMADALLI HCGP FOR R1
2
SRI.M.P.GETTHADEVI ADV. FOR R2
SRI.SUNEEL S NARAYAN ADV. FOR R3)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE R1 TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE WP SCHEDULE
SHOP BEING PUBLIC PROPERTY FROM BEIN GLOST TO
THE R3 AND FOR ITS PROTECTION AND ADMINISTRATION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue an appropriate writ order to direct the respondent No.1 to take charge of the writ petition schedule shop being public property from being lost to the respondent No.3 and for its protection and administration.
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ order to direct disciplinary action to be taken by the respondent No.1 against the concerned erring officials the respondent No.2, Town Municipal Council, Hunsur;
(iii) Issue an appropriate writ order to direct, taking appropriate action against the 3 respondent No.3 for perjury, fabrication of evidence in the judicial proceedings of O.S.No.24 of 2004 on the files of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hunsur, Mysore District and in proceedings of R.A.No.244 of 2009 on the files of the Learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, Hunsur, Mysore District;
(iv) To direct the respondent No.1 to receive the rents of the writ petition schedule property pursuant to lease granted to the petitioner vide Annexure-B in Ref No.PuSa/98-99 dated 25.07.1998 issued by the respondent No.2 pursuant to the respondent Town Municipal Council Resolution dated 21.4.1998 in Subject No.14 and regulate and administer the writ petition schedule shop in the hands of petitioner by passing such order as deem fit and proper the rents of the writ petition schedule shop.
(v) Issue any other order, direction as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case and to allow the writ petition with costs.4
2. The petitioner contends that he is in possession and enjoyment of the shop situated in Site No.1861 Bridge Road, Hunsur Town. The right initially is traced, to have come in possession of the said property in the year 1985 under one Late Vazeer Saheb who is the husband of respondent No.3. In that regard it is contended that the said Vazeer Saheb, in fact had been put in possession of the said property by respondent No.2 to whom it belonged. It is further contended that since the allottees of such shops were sub-letting the properties unauthorizedly, the respondent No.2- Municipal Council took a decision to lease out the properties directly to the sub-lessees who were in possession of such shops and to collect appropriate rents in that regard. Therefore, the petitioner places reliance on a resolution dated 24.8.1998 said to have been passed by respondent No.2 and a receipt dated 24.8.1998, which is the amount said to have been received from the petitioner pursuant to the same. It is 5 in that context the petitioner claims right against respondent No.2 to remain in possession of the property. Insofar as the litigations between the petitioner and respondent No.3, reference has been made to the eviction proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 and the same ending up in a second appeal before this Court. In that proceedings the petitioner no doubt has sought time to vacate from the premises, which has been granted. However, the right claimed in the instant petition is under respondent No.2 and it is in that circumstance the petitioner also seeks that appropriate action be taken against the officials of respondent No.2 for not protecting the property belonging to respondent No.2.
3. The respondents 2 as well as 3 have filed their separate objection statement.
4. Firstly in the circumstance as contended by the petitioner the objection of respondent No.2 becomes relevant. It is to be noticed that respondent No.2 has neither admitted ownership over the property as 6 claimed by the petitioner nor has admitted the resolution and the receipt relied upon by the petitioner. It is contended that there are no documents available with respondent No.2 at this juncture to establish that the property belongs to respondent No.2. In that circumstance it is contended by respondent No.2 that the litigation between the petitioner and respondent No.3 assumes importance inasmuch as the petitioner having not succeeded therein is presently making the instant claim as if he was a lessee of the respondent No.2 and therefore, the same cannot be entertained.
5. The respondent No.3 has filed a comprehensive objection statement relying upon the documents, which have been enclosed thereto to contend the manner, in which the husband of respondent No.3 came in possession of the said property under the municipality under the document and the manner, in which it is being enjoyed by respondent No.3.
6. Insofar as the litigation between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the nature of the decree granted 7 is referred to and therefore, it is contended that respondent No.3 is the owner of the property and as such is entitled to evict the petitioner, which is being done in accordance with law and the attempt of the petitioner in the instant petition is only to circumvent the decree, which is passed in favour of respondent No.3. Hence, respondents seek dismissal of the instant petition.
7. Having noticed the rival contentions, from the documents relied by respondent No.3 it would be clear that the property no doubt, at an earlier point in time belonged to the municipality and it is under the municipality the husband of the petitioner had acquired the right to the said property as per Annexure-R5. This aspect of the matter would prima facie indicate that pursuant thereto the husband of respondent No.3 has been in possession and in that context it is necessary to consider as to whether the contention put forth by the petitioner in the instant petition relying upon the documents at Annexure B and C could be accepted to come to a conclusion that a direction should be issued 8 to respondent No.2 to enquire into the matter and also to protect its property. Needless to mention, if in the records of respondent No.2 if it is found at any subsequent stage that the property belonged to respondent No.2 certainly appropriate action in accordance with law could be taken.
8. At this juncture, however, insofar as the case put forth by the petitioner what cannot be lost sight is that the petitioner at an earlier point had filed a suit in O.S.No.94/1998 against respondent No.3 and two others seeks the judgment and decree of injunction to restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The said suit was filed on 14.9.1998. The copy of the plaint is available at Annexure-R10. From a perusal of the pleadings therein it is seen that the right claimed by the petitioner is directly under respondent No.3 and two other private parties viz., the children of respondent No.3 herein and in that context it had been contended that the petitioner is the tenant of the said property under them and therefore, the interference by them 9 without due process of law would affect his right and as such injunction had been sought. In juxtaposition to the said documents, if the resolution at Annexure-B and the receipt at Annexure-C is taken note of, the alleged resolution is dated 21.4.1998 and the right claimed by the petitioner vide the receipt at Annexure-C based on such resolution is dated 24.8.1998, where under the petitioner is stated to have paid the amount to respondent No.2 since the relationship of the landlord and tenant had been regularized in view of the resolution passed therein. If in fact, the right as claimed by the petitioner existed as on 24.8.1998 certainly the petitioner would have impleaded respondent No.2 herein as one of the of the defendants to the said suit, which was filed after the said date i.e., on 14.09.1998 and there would have been relevant pleading to the said effect that though the petitioner had been inducted into the premises originally under Sri.Vazeer Saheb, the respondent No.2 had taken a decision to regularize it in favour of the petitioner, but there is not even a whisper in that regard. When that has not been done at that 10 undisputed point of time, the present contentions urged in the writ petition cannot be accepted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Since the main appeal itself is disposed of I.A. also does not survive for consideration stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE SS