In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER WRIT PETITION No.19343 OF 2012 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI M. GOWTHAM CHAND, S/O LATE SRI D.A.MOTILAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.80, BANGALORE HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, RANGA RAO ROAD CROSS, SHANKARPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.NATARAJ, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, ANEKAL, ANEKAL TALUK, 2. THE SECRETARY, CHANDAPURA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, CHANDAPURA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 3. SRI B.N.THIMMA REDDY, S/O LATE NARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DAYANAND.K.G, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2 SRI V.V.GUNJAL, ADV., FOR R3) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R3 BEFORE THE R1 IN APPEAL NO.16/2009-10 VIDE ANNEX-G BEFORE THE R1. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The petitioner contends that he has purchased two sites bearing No.14/44 (old No.3/36) & 14/45 (old No.3/37) in a layout called “Gold City” at Andapura Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Talur from Vishist Trading and Finance Pvt. Ltd., and Mahakaya Trading and Finance Pvt. Ltd., under two separate sale deeds dated 27.4.2006. M/s. Vishist Trading and Finance Pvt. Ltd., and Mahakaya Trading and Finance Pvt. Ltd., had purchased the aforesaid two sites from a company called M/s.Gold Coin Farms and Housing Developers Limited, under two sale deeds dated 20.03.1997. It is further contended that after purchase of the property, the katha of the sites have been transferred in his favour by the Chandapura Grama Panchayath. 3 Mr.B.T.Dayanand Reddy, son of the third respondent herein, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Gold Coin Farms and Housing Developoers Ltd., interfered with his possession and enJoyment of the said sites. Therefore, he filed a suit O.S.No.511/06 for inJunction restraining the company as also B.T.Dayanand Reddy, from interfering with his possession and enJoyment of the said property. The said suit was decreed on 15.12.2007. The appeal filed by the defendants therein challenging the decree in the suit was dismissed by the first Appellate Court and the Second appeal was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, B.T.Dayananda Reddy has set up certain persons, who have filed false complaints against the petitioner, which have also been closed. As a counter blast, the 3 rd respondent has filed an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayath RaJ Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Act’) before the 1st respondent in Appeal No.16/2010 challenging the transfer of katha in respect of those two sites in favour 4 of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing all proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.3 before the Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.16/2009-10 which is enclosed as Annexure-G to the writ petition. (ii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of Justice and equity.” 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the sites in question having purchased the same from its previous owner for valid consideration. His vendor had purchased the two sites from M/s. Gold Coin Farms and Housing Developers Limited., under two separate sale deeds. The suit filed by the petitioner 5 in O.S.No.511/06 against the said company and Mr.B.T.Dayanand Reddy has been decreed on 15.12.2007. The contention of the 3 rd respondent is that he is the owner of the said property and therefore, transfer of katha of the said property in favour of the petitioner is not valid. Therefore, he has filed an appeal under Section 269 of the Act for transfer of katha in his favour. The 1st respondent has to take into consideration the sale deeds of the petitioner, the decree of the Civil Court referred to above and has to pass appropriate order after granting the parties an opportunity of being heard. The appeal has been filed by the 3rd respondent at Annexure-F is under Section 269 of the Act. The 1 st respondent cannot be prevented from disposing of the appeal. Therefore, the 1 st respondent is directed to consider the appeal in accordance with law after taking into consideration the materials placed on record by the parties and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law after 6 hearing the contesting parties. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE KLY/ .

Load more