Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sri N. Venkatesh and Smt. D. Vijayalakshmi, filed a writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 03.06.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21193/2019 (LB-BMP). The writ petition had been filed by the appellants to challenge an order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the first respondent, the Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and to seek a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to restore khatha No.62/1/61/A/10, which was standing in the name of the first appellant. The factual background involves a land in Sy.No.10 measuring 4 acres in Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, originally acquired by one M. Manchaiah under a registered sale deed. The third respondent, Ravi Agarwal, purchased site No.61 measuring 60x40 feet in Sy.No.10 from the constituted attorney of M. Manchaiah. The khatha of site No.61/A in Sy.No.10 was issued to M. Manchaiah. The constituted attorney then sold site No.61/A measuring 40x20 feet in Sy.No.10 to the second appellant under a registered sale deed. The third respondent claimed to have gifted site No.61 in Sy.No.10 to his brother. The Joint Commissioner passed an order on 16.02.2019, which the appellants challenged. The Single Judge set aside that order and directed restoration of the khatha. The Division Bench, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the third respondent appearing in person, found no error in the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the Joint Commissioner's order was contrary to earlier directions and that the Single Judge's order was just and proper. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Khatha Restoration - Joint Commissioner's Order - Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, Section 4 - The appellants challenged the order of the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, which had changed the khatha entries. The Single Judge set aside that order and directed restoration of the khatha. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order, finding no error. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Title Dispute - Registered Sale Deed vs. Gift Deed - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The dispute involved competing claims over site No.61/A in Sy.No.10. The appellants claimed through a registered sale deed from the constituted attorney of the original owner, while the third respondent claimed through a gift deed from the same owner. The court did not decide title but upheld the Single Judge's order restoring the khatha. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, was valid and whether the Single Judge's order directing restoration of khatha was correct.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The order of the Single Judge dated 03.06.2019 in W.P.No.21193/2019 was upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ appeal
- Khatha restoration
- BBMP
- Karnataka High Court Act
- 1961
- Section 4
- Writ of Mandamus
- Joint Commissioner's order
- Single Judge's order
- Restoration of khatha
- Constituted attorney
- Registered sale deed
- Gift deed
- Site numbers
- Survey number
