W.A Nos. 4360-61 of 2010 · Karnataka High Court

SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O LATE MARULAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.254, BEML LAYOUT 12TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARNAGAR BANGALORE-560079 SMT MAMATHA BAI W/O RAJESH KUAMR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.18, 2ND FLOOR N G LANE, NAGARATHPET CROSS BANGALORE-560002. ...APPELLANTS (By SRI. R S HEGDE, ADV.) SMT. LINGAMMA W/O M RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A NO.1182, 11TH MAIN ROAD PRAKASH NAGAR BANGALORE-560010 SINCE DECEASED BY HER 2 W.A. Nos.4360-61/2010 (LB-BMP) 2 3 4 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE R-2 – SMT. R. PADMAVATHI. SMT R PADMAVATHI W/O PUTTARAJU @ NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 41 YARS R/A NO.3472, 7TH CROSS 1ST MAIN, GAYATHRINAGAR BANGALORE-560021 THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BBMP (WEST), N R ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560001 THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER GAYATHRINAGAR DIVISION, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560053. ...RESPONDENTS (By SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADV. FOR R-2) These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records relating to the case and be pleased to set aside the order dated 27.09.2010 passed in W.P. No.2502- 22/2009. These Writ Appeals coming on for Orders this day, K.L.MANJUNATH. J., delivered the following : JUDGMENT Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.25021-22/2009 dated 27th 3 W.A. Nos.4360-61/2010 (LB-BMP) September 2010 is called in question in these appeals. By consent of the parties, these appeals are taken up for final hearing.

The dispute in these appeals is in regard to transfer of khatha in respect of the site No. 2288 situated in 9 th Main Road, 'D' Block, 2nd Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The property in question was acquired by the BDA and same was required to be re-conveyed as per the Resolution of the BDA. The BDA based on the sale deed relied upon by the appellants herein has re- conveyed the property in their favour under a registered document dated 28.08.2003 in favour of the 1st appellant – Revanasiddappa. Based on the same, khatha was transferred to the name of the 1st appellant. Thereafter, the 1st appellant sold the property in favour of second appellant – Mamatha Bai under a registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.2003.

Thereafter, on an application filed by the 2nd appellant, khatha was transferred to the name of the 2nd appellant by the Assistant Revenue Officer of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order transferring the khatha in the name of the 2nd appellant, the respondents – 4 W.A. Nos.4360-61/2010 (LB-BMP) Lingamma and Padmavathi filed Writ Petition on the ground that they were the rival claimants and they were entitled for order of re-conveyance in their favour.

The property in question should have been re-conveyed to the writ petitioners and that a civil suit is already filed in O.S. No. 5369/2004 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. Therefore, the writ petition was filed to cancel the khatha made in the name of the 2nd appellant. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge saying that subject to the decision of the Civil Court an order has to be passed by BBMP for transferring the khatha. Therefore, the present appeals are filed.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that was arise for consideration before us in these appeals is that : “Whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error in order to interfere with the same”?

Admittedly, the property was acquired and vested in the BDA. If the BDA has re-conveyed the property in favour of the 1st appellant – Revanasiddappa and thereafter if the 1st appellant has 5 W.A. Nos.4360-61/2010 (LB-BMP) sold the property to the 2nd appellant, the Corporation was justified in transferring the khatha in her name relying upon the deed of re- conveyance and the sale deed executed by the 1st appellant in favour of 2nd appellant.

If the writ petitioners were of the opinion that they were entitled for an order of re-conveyance it is for them to file a suit to direct the BDA to re-convey the property and when the suit is already instituted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 unless and until the suit is decreed holding that re-conveyance deed executed by BDA in favour of Revanasiddappa was bad in law and that a fresh deed of re-conveyance has to be executed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The action of the BBMP in transferring the khatha cannot be find fault.

Therefore, in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was required to direct the parties to approach the BBMP for change of khatha based on the Judgment which may be delivered in the suit. Without doing so, khatha transferred to the name of the 2nd appellant has been set aside by quashing the order dated

27.11.2008. 6 W.A. Nos.4360-61/2010 (LB-BMP)

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion allowing of writ petition by the learned Single Judge by quashing the order of khatha dated 27.11.2008 is bad in law.