JAYAMMA Vs. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE residential property bearing No. 30/1 formerly bearing No. 17/6-30, bannerghatta Road, 36th Division (Chinna-ianapalya), Bangalore, was conveyed in favour of the petitioner under a Deed of sale dated 6-2-1974 Annexure-"a" and a rectification Deed dated 18-7-1974 Annexure-"b", consequent upon which, a katha certificate annexure "c", was issued by the respondent corporation of the city of Bangalore recording the name of the petitioner in its records as being primarily responsible to pay the taxes. The petitioner having paid Corporation taxes for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02, when of fered to pay taxes for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05, the 4th respondent City Corporation refused to receive the tax on the premise that the katha of the property was not in her name, which prompted the petitioner to address a petition dated 20-8-2004 annexure "e" to the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner (South), Corporation of City of Bangalore, to investigate into the matter and to furnish copies of the order relating to the change of katha from her name. The 2nd respondent by furnishing a copy of the endorsement Annexure "f" issued to the 3rd respondent, none other than the petitioner's son and a copy of the 3rd respondent's application for change of katha tqgether with its enclosure being an unregistered Partition Deed, Annexures "g" and "h" respectively. The petitioner filed a representation, Annexure-J, to the 2nd respondent deputy Commissioner, objecting to the change of katha, alleging that she did not consent to the change of katha in favour of her son - the 3rd respondent, and that the 1st respondent - Assistant Revenue Officer did not extend an opportunity of hearing before effecting a change of katha. The 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner is said to have issued notice to both the 3rd respondent, and the petitioner, whence the petitioner filed written arguments, Annexure- "k", while the 3rd respondent filed objections, Annexure "l", contending that the petitioner had executed a partition Deed, wherein, the property in question fell to his share. The 2nd respondent, by order dated 29-4-2005 Annexure "m", held that it was not within his jurisdiction to determine the validity or otherwise of the execution of the Partition Deed and directed the parties to the Civil Court to have their rights over the property in question adjudicated upon. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) THE petition is opposed by filing statement of objection dated 6-9-2005 of respondents 1, 2 and 4, interalia contending that the 3rd respondent made an application dated 17-9-2003 for change of katha of the property in question, into his name, enclosing the memorandum of family arrangement dated 27-9-2001 and a memorandum of partition dated 26-9-2003, the basis for the change of katha by endorsement dated 30-9-2003. According to the said respondents as the application was in accordance with Section 114 of the karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, for short 'act', the change of katha cannot be found fault with and the the petitioner having questioned the validity of the partition deed and Memorandum of family arrangement, the respondents having no jurisdiction to decide the said dispute, justifiably rejected the petitioner's objections to the change of katha by order dated 29-4-2005. In addition it is contended that in the enquiry before the 2nd respondent, on the petitioner's complaint, it was noticed that the petitioner had acted upon the aforesaid two documents of title and the 3rd respondent's sisters had sworn to affidavits, confirming the execution of the said documents.

(3.) THE petition is also opposed by filing statement of objections dated 19-6-2008 of respondent No. 3, contending that the writ petition is not maintainable due to suppression of material fact of the petitioner executing a deed of gift dated 29-6-2004, of the property in question in favour of her husband ramaiah Reddy, and was not entitled to have the katha changed to her name as on 20-8-2004, the date of complaint to the 2nd respondent. It is further contended that the property fallen to the share of his father by name ramaiah Reddy, when acquired by CITB, the compensation paid was consideration for purchase of the property in question and over which the building was erected on taking a loan, which when not repaid was subject matter of O. S. 10337/80. The respondent claims to have discharged the loan leading to the memorandum of family arrangement styled as "settlement Deed", voluntarily executed by the petitioner Ramaiah Reddy, the 3rd respondent and his two sisters, followed by the Tallu patti' dated 26-9-2003, the basis for the application for change of katha, According to the respondent the family arrangement was given effect to and each of the parties exercised their right title and interest over the properties fallen to their respective shares. The additional Statement of Objections dated 24-9-2008, discloses that the said respondent has instituted a suit to declare his title to the said property and to declare the Gift deed as well and void and has obtained an interim injunction restraining the petitioner from encumbering or alienating the said property.