Bangalore District Court
Shri. R. Ravi Naidu vs The Commissioner on 10 April, 2023
1 O.S.No.26106/2014
Govt. Of Karnataka
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
AT MAYOHALL UNIT, (CCH-29)
Title sheet for
Judgment in suits
BANGALORE.
(R.P.91)
Present: Sri. K.M. Rajashekar, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Dated: This the 10th day of April 2023
Original suit No.26106/2014
Plaintiff:- Shri. R. Ravi Naidu,
Alias Ravi Shankar,
S/o Late V.R Naidu,
Aged about 59 years,
R/a C-901, Mantri Greens,
Sampige Road,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560 003.
(By Pleader : Sri. MMG Adv.,)
V/s
Defendants:- 1. The Commissioner,
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
Near Hudson Circle,
Bangalore-560 002.
2. Assistant Revenue Officer,
Shanthalanagar Ward,
Ward No.111,
12th Floor, PUB Building,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001.
2 O.S.No.26106/2014
3. Smt. Manjula V Krishnan,
W/o Dr. Venkata Krishnan,
No.907-A3, 'J' Block,
19th Street, Vaigai Colony,
Annanagar West, Chennai-600040.
(Pleader by: Sri. BGKV Adv., for D.1 & D.2,
Sri. HD Adv., for D.3)
Date of Institution of the suit 22.7.2014
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for Declaration &
injunction, etc.) Injunction
Date of the commencement of 7.3.2017
recording of the Evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 10.4.2023
pronounced
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 08 08 18
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants praying to set aside the alleged endorsement dtd: 3.2.2003 and also to set aside the illegal, illogical and by non application of mind 3 O.S.No.26106/2014 reckoned the illegal demand of suit property tax dtd:
26.6.2014 vide notice.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Plaintiff are as follows:-
(i) It is stated that the Property bearing No.8, Old No.11A, Magrath Raod, Ashoknagar, Bangalore was acquired by the Plaintiff and his brother through registered Sale Deed executed on 10.12.1955 for the valuable sale consideration and Smt. R. Lalitha Naidu who was the mother guardian of the Plaintiff and his brother R. Bhaskar alias Balaji. On the day of attaining the age of Majority i.e., 16.5.1972, the Plaintiff and his brother have become the absolute owners of the said property, in accordance with the Title Deed stands in favour of the Plaintiff herein.
(ii) The Defendant No.2 had issued Letter dtd:
29.1.2003 vide No.ARO (SN) WD 76/ KTR / 2012-13, Shanthinagar Range, Bangalore had bifurcated the 4 O.S.No.26106/2014 property in the name of Plaintiff and his brother H.R. Bhaskar Naidu. Subsequent to that, on 3.3.2003 i.e., within the span of 4 days the Defendant No.2 had issued an endorsement vide No.DA/76/KTR.126/2002-
03 mentioning the insertion of Majula V. Krishnan who is the sister of Plaintiff as Joint Khathedar wherein the Defendants have not given an opportunity of being heard to the Plaintiff as stated and the Defendant on what grounds inserted her name within 4 days. Such insertion of her name is to be answered by the Defendants, even though there was no Title over the Suit Schedule Property in her favour, the question of adding her name in the khatha as Joint Khatha holder is totally misconceived, misleading, misinterpreting and cheating in nature. The Plaintiff had caused statutory Legal Notice on 2.1.2014 and served personally before them, on the same day obtained acknowledgment for having served the same. 5 O.S.No.26106/2014
(iii) It is alleged that Manjula V. Krishnan has filed Original Suit No.26920/2010, the said suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The subject matter of the plaint averments is one and the same. Since 2010 the Plaintiff has repeatedly requested the Defendants to cancel the name of Smt. Manjula V. Krishnan, the Defendants have not at all taken any steps to cancel. The Occupancy Certificate issued by the BBMP Authorities stands in favour of the Plaintiff herein. It is evident on record that the BBMP Authorities have accepted the Title of the Plaintiff, subsequent to adding the name of Manjula V. Krishnan is totally illegal, arbitrary, misleading, misinterpretation and contrary to law and facts of the case.
(iv) In O.S.No.26987/2009 the Hon'ble XIII Addl. City Civil Judge at Mayohall Court, Bangalore, has passed an order holding that:
6 O.S.No.26106/2014
"As per the terms of Tripartite Agreement, possession of the rear portion of the said building contending the contention of the said Manjula V. Krishnan is that she is in possession of the disputed property in question, the Hon'ble Court has rejected the her plea and taken stand that she is not in possession of the Suit Schedule Property."
(v) It is mandatory on the part of the Defendants to hold an enquiry before giving effect to as Joint Khathedar of the said Manjula V. Krishnan in addition to the Plaintiff herein. Without holding an enquiry and affording an opportunity of being heard to the Plaintiff by the Defendants herein on 26.6.2014 assessments made to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor buildings without adopting the ground norms of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 7 O.S.No.26106/2014 comprehensive Development Plan and also the matter has not been brought to the notice of the Bangalore Development Authority for its concurrence as warranted under law. The Defendant No.1 and 2 have no authority to assess the property prior to completion of building and issuance of Occupancy Certificate. The Demand Notices caused on 26.6.2014 to the suit premises are totally illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind and without authority of law.
(vi) The Will dtd: 20.10.1997 alleged to have been obtained by the said Manjula V. Krishnan vide Document No.45 of 1997 of Book No.3, Volume No.6, Pages 73 - 80 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Villivakkam, Chennai, is obtained by fraud and it is impermissible to consider without Probate of Succession through Court of law. The Suit Schedule Property has not purchased by Smt. Lalitha R Naidu 8 O.S.No.26106/2014 with her own funds and the funds invested by her husband for which the alleged property is not a self- acquired property as stated and the question of executing a Will by her in favour of the said Manjula V. Krishnan does not arise at all.
(vii) The Defendant No.1 and 2 have assessed the old building prior to construction of the Commercial complex by the Plaintiff, the Defendants have admitted in its records that the Plaintiff alone was in possession of the property and a portion was tenanted to M/s Blue Star Limited and the Annual Rental Value is based on the Lease Agreement executed by the Plaintiff for which he had received advance and monthly rents and also the Tax Deducted Source by the tenant M/s Blue Star Limited from the monthly rentals and Defendants have verified the documents and the Tax was paid solely by the Plaintiff and even now the Plaintiff is the sole 9 O.S.No.26106/2014 owner of the property and he has got absolute Title in his favour. The Defendants have failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the Plaintiff the Defendant No.1 and 2 have added her name abruptly as Joint Khathedar without adopting proper norms. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the Defendant No.1 & 2 have appeared through their Counsel and filed their written statements. During the pendency of the suit the Defendant No.3 impleaded herself as Defendant, but she has not filed any written statement.
4. The Defendant No.1 and 2 in their written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts, hence, the same is liable to 10 O.S.No.26106/2014 be dismissed in limine. The Plaintiff has not issued the statutory notice as required under Section 482 of KMC Act, before filing the above suit. No dispensation can be granted as there is no urgency in the matter. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of statutory notice as required under Section 482 of KMC Act.
(i) It is contended that in effect to the order made in Writ Petition No.12330/2011 between M/s Nali Trust and BBMP the property khatha has been bifurcated and allotted separate municipal No.8 and 8/1, Magrath Road, Bangalore, has been allotted to M/s Nali Trust represented by Sri. N.K. Ramanathan as per the Agreement between M/s Allied Investment and Housing Private Limited being the developer and owners namely Smt. Manjula Venkatakrishnan and Sri. Ravi Shankar and all precautionary measures have been taken with regard to transfer of khatha in the joint names of Smt. Manjula V. Krishnan and 11 O.S.No.26106/2014 Sri. Ravi Shankar also known as R. Ravi Naidu. It is contended that the Defendant No.3 has filed the suit against the Plaintiff for the relief of partition and separate possession, mesne profits and account in O.S.No.3590/2011 on the file of City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore and the said suit was decreed in favour of the Defendant No.3 on 30.10.2017.
(ii) It is contended that the Corporation while transferring/made khatha in respect of property very minutely scrutinizes the concerned documents, conduct spot inspection and also it is notified on the notice board calling for any objections from any person in respect of transferring/made the khatha and giving clear 30 days time and in the instant case as the Corporation has not received any objections from any persons within 30 days and following all the rules khatha has been transferred/made in the name of 3rd Defendant in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. It is further contended that the 'Khatha 12 O.S.No.26106/2014 issued only for the purpose of recovery of property tax U/s 108 (A) of the KMC Act, 1976, the name of the tax payer is mentioned in Form - A, which does not show title of the property. It is further contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to pass the order in W.P.No.12330/2011 as stated below:-
"It is brought to the notice of the Court by the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that O.S.No.26987/2009 is already dismissed on 30.8.2010 and the Review Petition filed for reviewing the order dtd: 30.8.2010 i.e., Misc.Petition No.25163/2010 is also dismissed on 7.11.2010."
(iii) If it is so, and if there are no litigations pending before the Civil Court in respect of the 13 O.S.No.26106/2014 Schedule property, it is open for the first and second Respondents (BBMP) to consider the representation of the Petitioner for change of Khatha. This Court makes it further clear that in case if the dispute with regard to title and adjudication is going in any of the Civil Courts, then the Khatha should not be changed in favour of the Petitioner and Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, these Defendants have complied the order.
(iv) The Defendant No.3 has filed the suit against the Plaintiff for the relied of partition, separate possession, mesne profits and account in O.S.No.3590/2011 on the file of City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore and the said suit was decreed in favour of the Defendant No.3 on 30.10.2017. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
14 O.S.No.26106/2014
5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings this Court has framed the following issues:-
1) Whether Plaintiff proves that the Defendants have not applied their minds and committed error while inserting the name of Manjula vide Order dtd: 3.2.2023 in DA/76/KTR.126/2002-03?
2) Whether Plaintiff proves that the notices issued by Defendant dtd: 26.6.2014 for payment of tax is not binding?
3) Whether Plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the Defendants?
4) Whether Defendant No.1 and 2 proves that suit is bad for non- compliance of Section 482 of KMC Act?15 O.S.No.26106/2014
6. To prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 documents. The Defendants have not led any evidence.
7. The Counsel for the Plaintiff filed written arguments. The Defendants have not addressed their arguments. Hence, their arguments taken as nil.
8. My answers to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3 : In the Negative Issue No.4 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Issues No.1 to 3:- These issues are inter-
related, hence, answered in common, in order to avoid repetition of facts.
16 O.S.No.26106/2014
10. The nutshell of the Plaintiff's case is that, the suit property was acquired by the Plaintiff and his brother through registered Sale Deed executed on 10.12.1955 The Defendant No.2 had issued Letter dtd: 29.1.2003 bifurcated the property in the name of Plaintiff and his brother, on 3.3.2003 i.e., within the span of 4 days the Defendant No.2 had issued an endorsement mentioning the insertion of Majula V. Krishnan who is the sister of Plaintiff as Joint Khathedar wherein the Defendants have not given an opportunity of being heard to the Plaintiff as stated and the Defendant on what grounds inserted her name within 4 days. The Plaintiff had caused statutory Legal Notice on 2.1.2014. Smt. Manjula V. Krishnan has filed Original Suit No.26920/2010, the said suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Since 2010 the Plaintiff has repeatedly requested the Defendants to cancel the name of Smt. Manjula V. Krishnan, the Defendants have not all taken any 17 O.S.No.26106/2014 steps to cancel. The Occupancy Certificate issued by the BBMP Authorities stands in favour of the Plaintiff herein. The Demand Notices caused on 26.6.2014 to the suit premises are totally illegal, arbitrary, non- application of mind and without authority of law. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
11. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff has not issued the statutory notice as required under Section 482 of KMC Act, before filing the suit. No dispensation can be granted as there is no urgency in the matter. In effect to the order made in Writ Petition No.12330/2011 between M/s Nali Trust and BBMP the property khatha has been bifurcated and allotted separate municipal No.8 and 8/1, Magrath Road, Bangalore, has been allotted to M/s Nali Trust represented by Sri. N.K. Ramanathan as per the Agreement between M/s Allied Investment and Housing Private Limited being the developer and owners namely Smt. Manjula Venkatakrishnan and 18 O.S.No.26106/2014 Sri. Ravi Shankar. It is contended that the Defendant No.3 has filed the suit against the Plaintiff for the relief of partition in O.S.No.3590/2011 which was decreed in favour of the Defendant No.3 on 30.10.2017 etc.
12. At this stage, it is relevant to have a look at the relevant provisions of KMC Act. On careful perusal of Section 443(A) and 444 of KMC Act, it reads as under:
[443-A. Appeal to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or District Court.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any notice issued, action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under sections 308, 309, 321 (3) may appeal,-
(i) to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in case of the [Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike;]
(ii) to the District Court having jurisdiction in case of other corporations.
(2) The decision of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or as the case may be the District Court shall be final.19 O.S.No.26106/2014
(3) All appeals made against any notice issued or other action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under sections 308, 309 and 321 (3) and pending before the standing committee on the date of commencement of this section shall stand transferred to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, or as the case may be, District Court and such appeals shall be disposed off by them as if they were filed before them.
2. Deemed to have been substituted by Act 22 of 2009 w.e.f.04.06.2009.
444. Appeal from Commissioner to standing committee.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the Standing Committee from,-
(a) any notice issued or other action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner,-
(i) under sections 138, 247, 248, 249, 252, 1 [xxx] 1 322(1), 323(1), 328(1), 329, 330, 337, 345, 347, 354, 355 and 358; 1.Omitted by Act 32 of 2003 w.e.f. 20.8.2003.
(ii) under any bye-law concerning house drainage or the connection of house drains with corporation drains; or house connection with corporation water supply or lighting 20 O.S.No.26106/2014 mains.
(b) any refusal by the Commissioner to grant permission to 1 [443-A. Appeal to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or District Court.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any notice issued, action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under sections 308, 309, 321 (3) may appeal,-
(i) to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in case of the 2 [Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike;]
(ii) to the District Court having jurisdiction in case of other corporations.
(2) The decision of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or as the case may be the District Court shall be final.
(3) All appeals made against any notice issued or other action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under sections 308, 309 and 321 (3) and pending before the standing committee on the date of commencement of this section shall stand transferred to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, or as the case may be, District Court and such appeals shall be disposed off by them as if they were filed before them.] The provisions of section of 253 of BBMP act reads thus:
21 O.S.No.26106/2014
253. Appeal against the decisions of the zonal commissioner.-
(1)Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Zonal Commissioner under this Chapter shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt of such decision, appeal to the Chief Commissioner whose decision shall be final. (2) The Chief Commissioner shall decide any matters referred to it under sub-section.
The provisions of section of 369 of BBMP act reads thus:
369. Powers and functions of the Grievance Redressal Authority,- (1) the Grievance Redressal Authority may: -
(a) call for and examine any document which he has reason to believe necessary to redress the grievance of an aggrieved citizen;
(b) The Grievance Redressal Authority shall, for the purposes of performing the functions under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the code of civil procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(i) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(ii) discovery and production of any document or other material object producible 22 O.S.No.26106/2014 as evidence;
(iii) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(iv) requisitioning of any public record;
(v) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses;
(vi) reviewing its decisions, directions and orders;
(vii) such other matter which may be prescribed;
(2) The Grievance Redressal Authority shall be a quasi judicial authority and dispose off the matters before him summarily.
(3) No complaint of the aggrieved citizen shall be entertained by the Grievance Redressal Authority unless the grievance has occurred as a result of deficiency negligence or malfeasance on the part of a office or officer or official or specific irregularity or benefit materially affecting the outcome or specific instance of discrimination is indicated.
(4) The Grievance Redressal Authority shall ensure that, - (a) the grievance is remedied in a time frame not exceeding ninety days from the date of receipt of the complaint; or
(b) the reason for the occurrence of the grievance is identified and the responsibility 23 O.S.No.26106/2014 of the defaulting office or individual is fixed and the grievance is redressed satisfactorily within one month after the period specified in clause (a) or (c) where the grievance has occurred as a result of a deficiency, negligence or malfeasance on the part of an office or individual the action is taken in accordance with conduct rules and departmental procedures; and
(d) where the individual responsible for the delivery of the goods and services has willfully neglected to deliver the good or service or there exist prima facie grounds for a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, he can make an observation to that effect along with a recommendation for the penalty to be imposed,-
(i) upto Group 'B' Officer to the Chief Commissioner;
(ii) Group 'A' and above officer to the Principal Secretary to Government or the Secretary to Government, as the case may be.
(5) The Grievance Redressal Authority may seek the assistance of any other officer required for the proper discharge of his duties or may direct any other officer to take action to redress a complaint made by aggrieved citizen;24 O.S.No.26106/2014
(6) Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (5), shall render all assistance to the grievance redress authority.
370. Appeal,- (1) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Grievance Redressal Authority or who has not received an action taken report in respect of a complaint filed by him, may within a period of thirty days from the expiry of the receipt of such decision, prefer an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the decision of such appellate authority shall be final:
Provided that, the Appellate authority may admit the appeal after the expiry of thirty days if it is satisfied that the complainant was prevented by sufficient reason or cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) Every appeal shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of receipt of such appeal.
(3) The appellate authority shall arrange to deliver copies of the decisions to the parties concerned within a period of fifteen working days from the date of decisions taken by him.
13. When the very jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit is doubtful, the question of 25 O.S.No.26106/2014 considering the relief in favor of the Plaintiff does not arise at all. It is to be noted here that the BBMP being the statutory body cannot act at their whims and fancies. They are governed by rule of law, they ought to have issued notice, passed considered orders and then only proceed for action. Such being the case, as mentioned above when the very jurisdiction of the Civil Court is in doubt, granting relief is not proper. Apart from that, admittedly the Plaintiff already filed a suit in O.S.No.26987/2009 which came to be dismissed. The Review Petition in Mis.No.25163/10 also demised. In addition to that the partition suit filed by the Defendant No.3 is decreed. Above all this matter is dealt by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.12330/17 also. Such being the case, the Plaintiff is not entitle for the reliefs as prayed. When it is established that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute the suit requires 26 O.S.No.26106/2014 to be dismissed. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
14. Issue No.4:- In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed with cost. Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April 2023].
[K.M. Rajashekar], XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.27 O.S.No.26106/2014
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the 65% of the undivided share in its title and interest over the commercial immovable property bearing No.11A, (New No.8) Magrath Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, (having unique PID No.76-9-8, which portion comprises built up area to an extent of 32,110 Sq.ft., consisting of the rear portion of the First Floor and the entire Second and Third Floors and 24 covered parking spaces and 17 surface parking spaces, along with proportionate undivided share in the land and the use of common areas and amenities and bounded on:
East by : Police Mess bearing old No.10, Magrath Road.
West by : Premises No.7, Magrath Road.
North by : Lt. J. Mitra's Bungalow, No.3, Commissariat Road.
South by : Magrath Road.28 O.S.No.26106/2014
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff:-
P.W.1 : R. Ravi Naidu.
2. List of documents marked:-
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
10.12.1955.
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Statutory Legal Notice dtd: 2.1.2014.
Ex.P.3 : Acknowledgment issued by BBMP. Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Order sheet in O.S.No.26920/2010.
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.26920/2010.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Written Statement in O.S.No.26920/2010.
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of Order Sheet in O.S.No.26987/2009.
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of Oder dtd: 30.8.2010 in O.S.No.26987/2009.
Ex.P.10 : Notice issued by BBMP.
& Ex.P.12 29 O.S.No.26106/2014 Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of Statutory Legal Notice dtd: 2.1.2014.
Ex.P.14 : Office copy of Statutory Legal Notice dtd:
26.6.2014.
Ex.P.15 : Office copy of Statutory Legal Notice dtd:
17.7.2014.
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of Order Sheet in PCR No.83/2010.
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of 'B' Report filed in Cr.No.469/2010.
Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.469/2010. Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of Private Complaint in PCR No.83/2010.
Ex.P.20 : Certified copy of application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C., in Cr.No.469/2010 (PCR No.83/2010).
Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of objections filed in Cr.No.469/2011 for bail application. Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of report submitted in Cr.No.469/2011.
Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of Protest Memo filed in PCR No.83/2010.
30 O.S.No.26106/2014
3. List of witnesses examined for the Defendant:-
None.
4. List of documents marked:-
Nil.
(K.M. Rajashekar) XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.31 O.S.No.26106/2014
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed with cost. Draw decree accordingly.
[K.M. Rajashekar], XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.