SHIVANNA Vs. CHIEF OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are persons claiming under one Halagappa S/o Honnappa, who had two sons, namely Honnappa and Sannappa. They are aggrieved by the impugned resolution dtd. 23/7/2012 passed by the respondent-Town Panchayat, Periyapatna. The contesting respondent, i.e., respondent No.2-AkKayamma, since deceased now represented by Sri.Thimmanayak, had approached the Town Panchayat seeking entry in the revenue records on the strength of a sale deed dtd. 15/6/1940. It is the contention of the contesting respondent No.6 that under the said registered sale deed, Patel Halagappa had sold the property in question measuring 22' x 33' in favour of Manchanayaka S/o Thoreramarusiddanaika. However, no explanation is offered as to why the katha was not got transferred in the name of the purchaser. It is therefore, the contention of the petitioners that all of a sudden, after a lapse of more than 70 years, the town panchyat has passed the impugned resolution directing transfer of the katha which was earlier standing in the name of the petitioners and forefathers, in favour of contesting respondent herein.

(2.) There is considerable force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sec. 111 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 provides that whenever a person acquires title over a immoveable property falling within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council, the transferee shall file an application seeking transfer of katha within a period of three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after registration and give such application in writing to the Municipal Council or Chief Officer. Notice is required to be given to the transferor consequent to such an application. In that view of the matter, this court finds that before transfer of the katha in favour of the contesting respondents herein, notice was require to be issued to the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. No explanation is sought to be offered by the respondents while seeking transfer of katha after the delay of nearly 70 years after the execution of the document. No such consideration is found in the impugned resolution passed by the Town Panchayat. Moreover, as time and again held by this Court disputed questions of title cannot be gone into by the revenue authorities. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the property in question although the registered sale deed is said to have been executed by Sri Halagappa in favour of Manchanayaka way back on 15/6/1940. The respondents also claim to be in possession of the property consequent to the execution of the sale deed. If that contention is to be accepted, there is no reason why the respondents did not get the katha transferred consequent to the execution of the sale deed if they taken possession of the property following the execution of the document. Nevertheless, these are all disputed questions touching upon the title of the property and therefore the aggrieved person is required to approach the competent civil court.

(3.) For the reasons stated above, this Court is satisfied that the impugned resolution passed by the respondent -Town Panchayat, Periyapatna, cannot be sustained.