HEMAVATHI Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the respondent No.2, in M.R.No.34/2018-19 dtd. 14/2/2019 and property register extract issued by respondent No.3, in the name of respondent No.4, concerning the property bearing Municipal No.790/13 situated at Kempapura Village, Yelhanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk lying within BBMP Ward No.7. The petitioners have also challenged the order dtd. 21/6/2021 passed by the respondent No.1 under Sec. 114A of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

(2.) The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the property bearing khaneshumari No.7/1, 7/2, 09, 10/2, 07 and 13 situated at Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. They claim that these properties were purchased under three different sale deeds dtd. 24/6/1946, 13/5/1948 and 25/9/1953 by their predecessor in title. Sri. Sanjeevappa, who died on 17/12/1984, leaving behind the petitioners who succeeded to the estate. They claimed to have entered into a partition deed dtd. 8/4/2019, consequent to which revenue entries were brought about in the name of the petitioners. When things stood thus, a person named Sri. Muddaiah, father of respondent No.4, sold a residential house to Sri. Gopalappa in terms of a sale deed dtd. 18/9/1931. Thereafter the brother of Sri. Muddaiah named Sri. Appanna sold two portions to the father of the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in terms of sale deed dtd. 24/6/1946. Later Sri. Muddaiah, sold his half share in ancestral properties in favour of Sri. Appallappa in terms of sale deed dtd. 10/10/1950. The petitioners claim that after their predecessors purchased the property from Sri. Appanna, he let out a small thatched roof to Sri. Appanna on rental basis. However, during June 1947 Sri. Appanna, left the village and his whereabouts were not known. Taking advantage of the situation Sri. Muddaiah again occupied the thatched house illegally which compelled the predecessors of the petitioners to file OS No.383/1947-48 for eviction and recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed in terms of Judgment and Decree dtd. 2/4/1949. The petitioners claim that since Sri. Muddaiah had already sold his interest, he could not claim to be in possession of the property. However, Sri. Muddaiah filed O.S.No.205/1973 before the Principal Second Munsiff at Bangalore for perpetual injunction where the Court granted an interm order dtd. 1/2/1974. Later the suit was dismissed on 15/1/1979. It is claimed that respondent No.4, claiming to be the daughter of Sri. Muddaiah had filed an application to insert her in respect of an area measuring 120 feet x 31 feet on the basis of interim order granted in OS No.205/1973. The respondent No.3 had conducted an enquiry, where at, one of the petitioners filed objections. The case was referred to the legal Cell, BBMP, who opined that as per the documents submitted by the respondent No.4, her father Sri. Muddaiah had acquired the property. Following this, the khatha of the property came to be entered in the name of respondent No.4, which was challenged before the respondent No.1, who dismissed the Review Petition on the ground that the case presented by the petitioner involved complicated questions of fact and law, which required adjudication by a Civil Court. Hence the petitioners have challenged the above orders in the present writ petition.

(3.) The aforesaid facts itself indicates that the petitioners as well as respondent No.4, are claiming title to the property based on antecedent documents. A perusal of the writ petition more particularly ground No.27 indicates that disputed question of facts are involved which require adjudication by a Civil Court which definitely cannot be decided by respondent No.1.