High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Demolition Order Under KMC Act — Petitioner Failed to Establish Title Over Disputed Property. Court Held That Summary Proceedings Under Section 321 of KMC Act Cannot Be Used to Adjudicate Title Disputes, and Petitioner Must Seek Remedy Before Civil Court.

Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging an order passed by BBMP in appeal proceedings under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

Quashing of order dated 2.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.IX in Appeal No.143/2016 by BBMP, which ordered demolition of certain structures.

Petitioner claimed ownership of property and alleged that the impugned order was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and Sections 321, 300, and 303 of the KMC Act.

The impugned order dated 2.11.2018 was passed in I.A.No.IX in Appeal No.143/2016 by BBMP.

Whether the petitioner has established her title over the disputed property to challenge the demolition order? Whether the summary proceedings under Section 321 of KMC Act can be used to adjudicate title disputes?

Petitioner argued that she is the owner of the property and the demolition order is illegal and violative of constitutional and statutory provisions. Respondents contended that the petitioner failed to produce any document to establish her title over the disputed property.

Summary proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 cannot be used to adjudicate title disputes. A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when there are serious disputed questions of title, and the petitioner must seek remedy before the civil court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of a portion of the property in Survey No.64/3 presently assigned property No.6, 3rd Main, Ramaiah Layout, Kacharakanahalli, Ward No.29, Bengaluru – 560 084. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mrs. J Rees purchased an extent of 2.2 guntas of land from one Sayamagari Papanna under the sale deed dated 27.08.1980 out of the property bearing Survey No.64/3 of Kacharkanahalli village. That by sale deed dated 10.11.1994 the said Mrs. J Rees sold a part of the said property in favour of her son-in-law by name Eugene Paul. That the said Eugene Paul obtained a building license from the BBMP bearing L.P. No.97/97-98 dated 13.03.1998. That the construction was put-up in the year 1998 and a set back was allowed on the southern side of the premises and it is in this portion a sewerage line has also been laid and compound wall was put up by the said Eugene Paul with the consent of the vendor, that is, his mother-in-law and the owner of the adjoining property Mrs. J Rees. That the said Eugene Paul sold the property in favour of the petitioner under the sale deed dated 20.06.2005. The petitioner has not produced any document to establish her title over the disputed property. The sale deed dated 20.06.2005 does not mention the property in question. The petitioner has not demonstrated that she is the owner of the property. The summary proceedings under Section 321 of the KMC Act cannot be used to adjudicate title disputes. The petitioner must seek remedy before the civil court. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru challenging an order dated 2.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.IX in Appeal No.143/2016 by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The court heard the parties and dismissed the petition on 25.07.2019.

• Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976: 321, 300, 303
• Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 21, Article 226