HANMANTHAPPA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-C in file No.PURASABHE:V:200:2000- 01/2535-36 dtd. 25/11/2000 and Annexure-D1 in file No.PURASABHE:VARGA:714:2001-02/1607-08 dtd. 2/9/2002 only to the extent of House property bearing CMC No.5/5/91 A (Old) and 5/5/84 (New) situated near Ashoka Lodge, Station Area, Yadgir, and restore the name of the petitioner in the municipality records.

(2.) Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order at Annexure-G passed by the respondent no.2 in file No.SUM/KUM/PRA AGU/PURASABHE/261/2017-18/11167 dtd. 14/12/2017.

(3.) To pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the house property bearing CMC No.5/5/91/A (Old) and 5/5/84 (New) situated near Ashoka Lodge, Station Area, Yadgir. It is his specific case that the said property originally belonged to his ancestors and after their death, the revenue records were mutated in his name and he was paying property tax from the year 1994-95 to 1999-2000. Thereafter, in the year 2001, the petitioner had to move to Kalaburagi for the purpose of the education of his children and at the time of shifting he had asked his distant relative Smt. Annapurnamma to take care of the property in question. Taking undue advantage of the absence of the petitioner, respondent no.3 - Smt. Annapurnamma claiming herself to be the daughter of the petitioner, had created an affidavit in the name of the petitioner to the effect that he had no objection to change the revenue entries in respect of the property in question in favour of the said Annapurnamma. 3. The Chief Executive Officer of City Municipal Council, Yadgir, based on such an affidavit, had ordered to delete the name of the petitioner and enter the name of respondent no.3 - Smt. Annapurnamma in the revenue records of the property in question. It appears that subsequently Smt. Annapurnamma has executed another affidavit for transfer of the said property in favour of her son - respondent no.4 herein and based on such affidavit, the Chief Executive Officer of City Municipal Counsel, Yadgir, has ordered to transfer the property in the name of respondent no.4. Petitioner, after coming to know about the same, had filed a revision before respondent no.2 who has dismissed the same vide impugned order at Annexure-G on the ground that since the dispute is civil in nature, the petitioner was required to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of his dispute. Being aggrieved by such an endorsement dtd. 14/12/2017 issued by respondent no.2 vide Annexure-G, the petitioner is before this Court. The contesting respondents who have entered appearance have not filed their statement of objections till date.