(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S.K., ADVOCATE) v. BANGALORE-562 027
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy elsewhere as per law. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
Judgment
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S.K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:
K.P.VENKATARAMSWAMY S/O LATE K.V. PUTTARAMU AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT WARD NO.2 - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13400 WP No. 1567 of 2019 HC-KAR NEAR APMC MARKET M.G. ROAD KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-572 117.
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNICIPALITY KANAKAPURA-562 117.
REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND REVISIONAL AUTHORITY BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE-562 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.S.ANASUYA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R3; R1 - SERVED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED
22.10.2018 IN MUNCIPAL RP NO.10/2015-16 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13400 WP No. 1567 of 2019 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is making a claim in respect of an immovable property which is also claimed respondent no.2-Kanakapura Town Municipality. In this regard, he has challenged an endorsement dated 20.01.2014 (vide Annexure-G to the writ petition) issued by Chief Officer, Kanakapura Town Municipality and also the impugned order passed by respondent no.3 in dispute No.JAAiÀÄÄJ£ï.Dgï.¦.10/2015-16 (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition).
2. It is seen that the petitioner challenged the endorsement at Annexure-G to the writ petition before respondent no.3 and Annexure-H has been passed by respondent no.3, wherein, he has ordered that, as the petitioner is making a claim in respect of an immovable property against which Kanakapura Town Municipality is also having a claim, the same is liable to be enquired into by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner under Section - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13400 WP No. 1567 of 2019 HC-KAR 82(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act, 1964').
3. I do not see any error in the same because Section 82(1) of the Act, 1964 reads as under: "82. Decision of claims to property by or against the municipal council.—(1) In any municipal area to which a survey of lands, other than lands ordinarily used for the purposes of agriculture only, has been or shall be extended under any law for the time being in force, where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the municipal council, or by any person as against the municipal council it shall be lawful for the Deputy Commissioner after enquiry, of which due notice has been given to pass an order deciding the claim. "
In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner is making a claim on the property which is also claimed by the Town Municipality and Section 82(1) of the Act, 1964 provides the forum before which he has to necessarily agitate the same and the impugned order at Annexure-H to the writ petition is in consonance with it. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13400 WP No. 1567 of 2019 HC-KAR
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy elsewhere as per law. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.