NITIN PUNJA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's father purchased certain immovable properties under two registered sale deeds dated 25/07/1975 and 26/07/1975, annexures 'a' and 'b' respectively which were assigned Municipal no. 4-5-94/2. On the death of the petitioner's father on 30th August 1994, the petitioner's application to substitute his name as the khatedar of the said properties, remained unresponded and on account of interference by respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 6340/1999 and 6758/1999 for mandamus which were disposed of by order dated 17. 6. 99 Annexure 'e' directing the Chief Officer municipality to dispose of the application of the petitioner for transfer of khata. The Chief Officer, after enquiry, by order dated. 1. 10. 99 annexure 'f'. substituted the name of the petitioner in its khata register. The 4th and 5th respondents aggrieved by the said order preferred appeal No. 60/99-2000 to the first respondent, who by order dated 25/08/2005 Annexure "a" cancelled the khata. Hence, this Writ petition.

(2.) THE petition is opposed by filing statement of objections dated 14/09/2006 of respondent No. 4 interlia contending that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the sale deeds Annexures "b" and "c" are illegal as the immovable properties conveyed therein are a portion of the property in Sy. No. 198/3 of Gangavathi measuring 29 guntas which is said to be a khabrastan (Muslim burial ground ). According to the 4th respondent, the land in Sy. No. 198/3 is declared to belong to a wakf Institution and a Wakf property as found at Sl. No. 35 of the gazette Notification bearing No. KTW/3060/asr/74 dated 4th may 1974 and published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 25th September, 1975 and corrigendum dated 7th September, 1996, published in the gazette dated 21st November 1996 Annexure R-1. In addition, it is contended that at the instance of the 4th Respondent and another, a proceeding was instituted arraigning the petitioner's father as a respondent, whence, the Divisional Commissioner, in Case No. 70/ apm//92, by order dated 10th January, 1995 Annexure R-15, held that on account of endorsement issued on 14/05/1992 to the petitioner's father by the Municipality of Gangavathi that there was no khata mutation in the name of Veerapakshaya swamy, the construction license issued to him in respect of the said property stood cancelled. It is lastly stated that the 4th respondent is the Muthawalli of the Wakf institution.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that 4 and 5th respondents without authority and having no private interest in the property in question, being busy bodies, not competent to represent the Wakf Board in the matter of substitution of the petitioner's name as Khatedar filed an incompetent appeal before the Deputy commissioner. It is next contended that the immovable properties in question are not part of Khabrastan in Sy. No. 198/3 as there is no material to support the same coupled with the fact that the Wakf Board having not questioned the transfer of Khatha, the respondents 4 and 5 were incompetent to maintain the appeal. In addition, the Learned counsel contends that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is not a speaking order as no reasons are assigned, tantamounting to denial of justice.