Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sri N. Venkatesh and Smt. D. Vijayalakshmi, filed a writ appeal against the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21193/2019 (LB-BMP). The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the first respondent, the Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), which directed restoration of khatha No.62/1/61/A/10 in favour of the third respondent, Ravi Agarwal. The appellants also sought a writ of mandamus to restore the khatha in the name of the first appellant. The factual background involves a dispute over property in Sy.No.10, Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli. One M. Manchaiah acquired the land and later, through a constituted attorney, sold site No.61/A to the second appellant. The third respondent claimed ownership of site No.61 and obtained a civil court decree in O.S.No.100/2010, which directed the BBMP to restore the khatha in his name. The Joint Commissioner, relying on this decree, passed the impugned order. The appellants argued that the decree was obtained by fraud and that the Joint Commissioner had no jurisdiction. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the order was based on a civil court decree and that the appellants had an alternative remedy. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, upheld the Single Judge's decision, noting that the Joint Commissioner's order was based on a decree passed by a competent civil court, which had not been challenged by the appellants. The court found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Khatha Dispute - Restoration of Khatha - Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - The appellants challenged the order of the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, directing restoration of khatha in favour of the third respondent based on a civil court decree. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench held that the Joint Commissioner's order was based on a decree passed by a competent civil court, and the appellants had an alternative remedy of approaching the civil court. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Civil Court Decree - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court noted that the Joint Commissioner's order was based on a decree passed by a competent civil court, which had attained finality. The appellants did not challenge the decree. The court held that the writ court should not interfere with such an order. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, directing restoration of khatha in favour of the third respondent based on a civil court decree.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.06.2019 in W.P.No.21193/2019 is upheld.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- property khatha
- civil court decree
- BBMP
- restoration of khatha
- alternative remedy
