C.J. Sujatha and Others vs Commissioner, City Municipal Council and Others

Ravi Malimath, J.—The case of the petitioner is that his father-in-law was the owner of the vacant site measuring No. 75/50 in Mandya town, which was purchased by him from one Abdul Bashid Saheb, under a registered sale deed dated 01.07.1956. A resolution was passed by the first respondent the Commissioner City Municipal Council, Mandya, allotting an alternative site in favour of his father-in-law, in view of the site utilized by first respondent for the purpose of formation of road. The assessment register extract shows the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner. A resolution by the first respondent in favour of the petitioners was passed in the year 1963. An endorsement was issued in favour of the husband of the petitioner. All the records in respect of the property stand in his name. The resolution of the first respondent displays the said fact. However, in the year 2005 respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, questioning the katha transfer in the name of the petitioner, which has been made on the basis of the settlement deed. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order allowed the same. Hence, the present petition.

Shri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends, firstly, that there is a delay of 42 years in filing the revision. That the delay has not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner. Even though the provisions of Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipality Act, provides for filing of a revision and does not provide for limitation, the same can be exercised only within a reasonable time. It cannot be said that 42 years is a reasonable time to entertain such an appeal. Secondly contends that a resolution has been passed in his favour as far as in the year 1963. The resolution was also placed for consideration before the Deputy Commissioner which shows that in, view of the endorsement made for formation of the road, a land in lieu of the same was granted to the petitioner. Therefore, all the records stand in his name. Hence, on merits also, the Deputy Commissioner committed an error in allowing the revision and setting-aside the katha.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 submits that in terms of the sale deed, the petitioner has an excess of land as mentioned therein. That the resolution granting him the land in question is erroneous.

On hearing learned counsel, I'' am of the considered view that appropriate reliefs require to be granted. Firstly, it can be seen that the katha was effected in the year 1963. Since then, the petitioner has been in possession of the land in question. The present appeal has been filed after a lapse of almost 42 years. There is no reason explained by the respondents as to what prevented them from approaching the concerned authorities at an earlier point of time. The delay has not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, on the question of delay itself, the petition requires to be allowed, on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the revision after a lapse of 42 years.

So far as the merits is concerned, the material on record would shows that the property is in possession of the petitioner. It cannot be said to be unauthorized occupation, as he is in possession of the said property in terms of the resolution passed in the year 1963. Thereafter, the katha has also been effected on the basis of such a resolution. Therefore, the plea of the respondents that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the property in question is beyond the records. Under these circumstances, I'' am of the considered view that the petition requires to be allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner requires to be set-aside on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 31.11.2010 passed by the sixth respondent in case No. MA:2/2005, vide Annexure - N to the writ petition is quashed.

Rule made absolute.