Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.2170 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.4953 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2015 (LB-BMP)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.2170 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SMT PROMODA DEVI WADIYAR W/O LATE SRI. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA WADIYAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O BANGALORE PALACE, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-52.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C K VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK BANGALORE-20 (REP BY ITS SECRETARY)
2 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER B.B.M.P., N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE
2 3 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDYARANYA THEATRE COMPLEX STERLING TALKIES ROAD VISHWESHWARANAGAR 1ST STAGE MYSURU - 570 008
4 . THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER - III INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. SANMATHI INDRAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND 4 SRI. HEMANTHRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE R-1 HAS NO RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 1.1. ACRES (52 X 80 MTRS) IN GAYATHRI DEVI PARK EXTENSION, BANGALORE. DIRECTION TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE R-2, THE COUNCIL OF B.B.M.P DT.31.12.2014 AT ANNX-E ALLOTTING THE LAND MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 1.1. ACRES IN GAYATHRI DEVI PARK EXTENSION, BANGALORE ON LEASE TO THE POLITICAL PARTY JD(S) AND QUASH THE SAME. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE R-2 , THE COUNCIL OF B.B.M.P. DT.31.12.2014 AT ANNX-E ALLOTTING THE LAND MEASURING AN EXTENT OF THE LAND MEASURING 1.1. ACRES IN GAYATHRI DEVI PARK EXTENSION, BANGALORE ON LEASE TO THE POLITICAL PARTY JD(S) PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE W.P.
3 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4953 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT REVAMMA W/O LATE NARSIMHA RAJU, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF NARASAMMANI & SIDDARJU, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 2 . SRI N. RAJENDRA S/O LATE S. NARASIMHA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
3 . SRI N.G. RAJU S/O LATE S. NARASIMHA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4 . N. GIRI RAJU S/O LATE S. NARASIMHA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.7, PALACE GUTTAHALLI MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE 560003
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K S NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560002
2 . THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE - 560020
3 . JANATHA DAL (SECULAR) KARNATAKA,
4 NO.3, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560009 BY ITS WORKING PRESIDENT
4 . SMT. PRAMODA DEVI WADIYAR W/O LATE SRI S.N. WADIYAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O BANGALORE PALACE, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 570052
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. HEMANTHRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. C.K. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DT.31.12.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 ON THE SUBJECT NO.263/2014-15 VIDE ANNX-S. DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.07.2004 MADE BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNX-Q FORTHWITH. GRANT AN AD- INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION, IMPLEMENTATION, EXECUTION & ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE RESOLUTION DATED 31.12.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 ON THE SUBJECT NO.263/2014-15 VIDE ANNEXE-S.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI K.G. CHANDRASHEKER BHAT SON OF LATE GOPAL BHAT, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
5 RESIDING AT NO.142, 5TH CROSS, R.M.V.EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560080.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
JANATHA DAL (SECULAR) - KARNATAKA
NO.3, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009
BY ITS WORKING PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. K.S. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR I.A.NO.3/2015)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXE- J RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2014 IN SUBJECT NO.263/2014-15. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSAUNT TO ANNEX-J THE RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2014 IN SUBJECTION NO.263/2014-15.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
6 ORDER In W.P.No.2170/2015, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare that the respondent No.1 has no right, title or interest in the land measuring 1.1 acres in Sy.No.2 of Rajamahal, presently called Gayatri Devi Park Extension, Bengaluru. (Henceforth referred as 'Subject land') She has also sought for writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the resolution of respondent No.2 dated 31.12.2014 allotting the subject land to the respondent No.5.
In Writ Petition No.4953-56/2015, the petitioners have sought for a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 31.12.2014 passed by respondent No.2 allotting the subject land to respondent No.5. They have also sought for a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider their representation dated 14.07.2004.
In Writ Petition No.744/2015, the petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 31.12.2014 passed by
7 respondent No.2 allotting the subject land to respondent No.5.
While the petitioner in W.P.No.2170/2015 claims that the subject land belonged to her husband, he having succeeded from his father - His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore. The petitioner in W.P.No.4953/2015 claimed that his highness the Maharaja of Mysore had given away East to West 38 yards x North to South 135 yards in the subject land in exchange of Sy.No.31 of Mulenahalli which was enclosed by the Bangalore Palace compound wall. Contrarily, the petitioner in W.P.No.744/2015 claims that a portion of land measuring 3.30 acres in Rajamahal village was given away by his highness, the Maharaja of Mysore to the mother of the petitioner on 17.09.1954.
In all these petitions, though they assert title to the subject land through various means, all of them are concerned with the allotment of the subject land by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.5. Hence, without
8 going into the question of the legality of the title of the petitioners to the subject property, these petitions are taken up for consideration to determine the validity of the resolution passed by respondent No.2 dated 31.12.2014 granting the subject land to the respondent No.5.
It is stated that during pendency of these writ petitions, the respondent No.2 had in supersession of the resolution dated 31.12.2014, passed another resolution on 27.02.2015 on Subject No.12(331)/2014-15 allotting a site in ward No.95 adjacent to Krishna Floor Mill to the Respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in view of the subsequent resolution, the earlier resolution dated 31.12.2014 is substituted and therefore, no order be passed in these writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners however submit that until the resolution dated 31.12.2014 is set aside or quashed, there would be a clog on title of the said property and there is a
9 likelihood that respondent No.2 may continue the claim right of the interest of the said property.
It is seen that the Tax Recovery Officer - III, Income Tax Department issued a public notice dated 22.03.1993 to auction the subject land, to recover arrears of Income tax payable by Srikantadatta Wodeyar. The respondent No.1 claimed the subject land as civic amenity site and belonged to it and hence challenged the notice dated 22.03.1993 before this Court in W.P.8753/1993. This Court in terms of the Order dated 11.02.2000 directed the respondent No.1 to file its objections before the Tax Recovery Officer - III. Thereafter respondent No.1 filed its objections. Later, the Commissioner of Income Tax by a detailed order dated 21.11.2006 rejected the objections and held that the subject land was the private property of Srikanta Datta Wodeyar. Aggrieved by this, the respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.2381/2007, which was disposed off on 18.02.2011 directed respondent No.1 to file a suit as
10 prescribed under Rule 11 of II schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent No.1 has not filed any suit till date.
If the respondent No.1 has not established its right before the Civil Court, the Respondent No.2 which is the successor authority cannot usurp the subject land, without first establishing its title in the manner known to law. Thus the impugned resolution dated 31.12.2014 granting the subject land to Respondent No.5 is thoroughly illegal.
The Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4953/2015 claimed title in respect of East to West 38 yards and North to South 135 yards in terms of deed dated 13.01.1905 executed by His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore. They claimed that later a suit was filed in O.S.No.6779/1991 for perpetual injunction against the respondents No.1 and 2. They claimed that a representation was filed on 10.07.1994 before the Tahsildar, Bangalore North to effect khatha in their names. They were directed to approach the Respondent No.1. In the meanwhile, the Tax Recovery
11 Officer - III issued a notice of public auction to sell the subject land, which culminated in the order dated 18.02.2011 in W.P.No.238/2007. The petitioners again requested the respondent No.1 to transfer the khatha, who after a detailed enquiry allegedly held that the subject land did not belong to respondent No.1. Nonetheless, respondent No.1 granted the subject land respondent No.5 by virtue of the impugned resolution dated 31.12.2014.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.744/2015 claimed that His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore had given away 3.30 acres in Sy.No.2 of Rajamahal to his mother on 17.09.1954. He claimed that his mother had filed several representations to register the khatha in her name and later filed W.P.No.39398/2004 for directions to consider the representations. This Court disposed off the Writ Petition directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 03.02.2004 in accordance with law. Following this, further proceedings were initiated by
12 respondent No.1 but the representation dated 03.02.2004 was not decided.
The above facts disclose that none of the parties including the respondents have taken steps to establish their title.
This Court has however avoided answering the question whether the suit land is the private property retained by his highness the Maharaja of Mysore, but the same shall be answered in an appropriate proceeding. Likewise, this Court has refrained from commenting upon the right, title and interest of the other two petitioners.
In view of the subsequent development namely allotment of another site to respondent No.5 herein by respondent No.2, the Writ Petition No.2170/2015 is allowed. The impugned resolution dated 31.12.2014 on subject No.263/2014-15 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed.
13 15. Writ Petition No.744/2015 is allowed and the impugned resolution dated 31.12.2014 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to take further steps as directed by this Court in W.P.No.3938/2004 and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Writ Petition No.4953/2015 is allowed and the impugned resolution dated 31.12.2014 at Annexure-S is quashed. Consequently, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation dated 14.07.2014 filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE
GBB