AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagamohan Das
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.11.2010 - Annexure L passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer of respondent No. 1-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short ''the BBMP''). The subject matter of this writ petition is property bearing Corporation No. 327 (sub numbered as 327, 327/3, 327/4, 327/5 and 327/6) situated at Mysore Road, Bangalore city. Petitioners contend that they purchased the property in question from one Smt. Narayanamma-respondent No. 2 herein under two different sale deeds dated 13.05.1986. The applications filed by the petitioners for transfer of khatha of the property in question to their names came to be rejected by respondent No. 1 under an endorsement dated 10.03.1992 on the ground that Smt. Narayanamma objected inter alia contending that the suit filed by her against the petitioners in O.S. No. 986/1987 is pending adjudication. Thereafter the petitioners filed O.S. Nos. 9077/1996 and 9078/1996 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.
When the matter stood at that stage the petitioners approached this Court in W.P. No. 19205/1992 to quash the endorsement issued by respondent No. 1 dated 10.03.1992 refusing to transfer the khatha. This Court vide order dated 05.11.1998 rejected the writ petition with an observation as under:
Admittedly, the first respondent has filed suit O.S. No. 986/87 seeking for cancellation of the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioners and the said suit is pending adjudication on the file of the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Further, it is also not in dispute that suits O.S. Nos. 9077 and 9078/97 filed by the petitioners seeking for possession, against the first respondent and others, are also pending adjudication before the Court of Civil Judge, Bangalore. Under these circumstances, when there is a serious dispute with regard to the title asserted by the petitioners in respect of the property in question, if respondents 2 and 3 have refused to enter the names of the petitioners in the Municipal records, I do not find any justification to interfere with the said decision of respondents 2 and 3, in this petition. However, it is necessary to observe that respondents 2 and 3 are required to make necessary entries in the Municipal records consequent upon the decision of the Civil Court, which may become final.
Thereafter the trial Court clubbed O.S. No. 986/1987, O.S. Nos. 9077/1996 and 9078/1996 and by a common judgment dated 21.12.2006 dismissed O.S. No. 986/1987 and decreed O.S. Nos. 9077/1996 and 9078/1996 declaring the petitioners as owners of schedule property and that they are entitled for possession. During the pendency of these suits respondent No. 2 transferred the property in question in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Pursuant to this alienation made by respondent No. 2 the khatha of the property in question was transferred to the names of respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Aggrieved by this judgment of the trial Court respondent No. 2 filed R.F.A. Nos. 662, 661 and 663/2007 on the file of this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by a common judgment dated 22.10.2009 dismissed all the three appeals and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Thereafter respondent No. 2 carried the matter to the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil Appeal) No. 16349-16351/2010 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2010. Thus the judgment and decree of the trial Court declaring the petitioners as the absolute owners and entitled for recovery of possession had become final.
Again the petitioners approached respondent No. 1-BBMP to transfer the khatha of the property in question in their favour. Since respondent No. 1 failed to react to the request of the petitioners they approached this Court in W.P. No. 2107/2009 and the same came to be disposed vide order dated 04.10.2010 with an observation as under:
An objector filing an application, disputing the identity of the property should not come in the way of the respondent No. 1 considering the case of the petitioners for change of khatha in their favour. Khatha is only a fiscal entry; it only enables a party to pay the tax. Even assuming that there is some dispute regarding the identity of the property, it is for the Execution Court to adjudicate the matter.
The petitioners and the contesting respondents are directed to appear before the concerned Officer of the respondent No 1 (Assistant Revenue Officer, Chandra layout range) at 10.30 a.m. on 23.10.2010 without waiting for any notice from the said Assistant Revenue Officer. On considering the view-points to be put across by the rival parties and acting in the letter and spirit of the judicial pronouncements to which a reference is made hereinabove, the Assistant Revenue Officer shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law within six weeks from 13.10.2010.
Now the Revenue Officer of respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 - Annexure L again rejecting the request of the petitioners for transfer of khatha on the ground that there is dispute with regard to the identity of property, respondent Nos. 3 to 7 in whose names the khatha stands have not transferred the property to the petitioners and there is no specific direction by the Court to transfer the khatha. Hence, this writ petition.
Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
The judgment and decree passed by the civil Court in O.S. Nos. 9077/1996 and 9078/1996 declaring that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the property in question had become final. Therefore the petitioners are entitled for transfer of khatha of the property in question to their names. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are the transferees from respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the suits referred to above. Therefore the outcome in the suits is binding on respondent Nos. 3 to 7. This Court in W.P. No. 19205/1992 to which respondent No. 1 is a party directed to make necessary entries in the municipal records consequent upon the decision of the civil Court which may become final. Therefore the impugned order Annexure L passed by respondent No. 1 is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 19205/1992 and on this ground the same is liable to be quashed.
Further this Court in W.P. No. 2107/2009 to which the respondents herein are parties held "An objector filing an application, disputing the identity of the property should not come in the way of the respondent No. 1 considering the case of the petitioners for change of khatha in their favour. Khatha is only a fiscal entry; it only enables a party to pay the tax. Even assuming that there is some dispute regarding the identity of the property, it is for the Execution Court to adjudicate the matter." Despite this finding by this Court respondent No. 1 rejected the claim of petitioners on the ground that there is dispute with regard to the identity of the property. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to the finding of this Court in W.P. No. 2107/2009. On this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The impugned order passed by the Revenue Officer of respondent No. 1 - BBMP is contrary to the order of this Court in W.P. No. 19205/1992, the judgment and decree in O.S. Nos. 9077/1996 and 9078/19% affirmed by this Court R.F.A. Nos. 662, 661 and 663/2007 and finally the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil Appeal) No. 16349-16351/2010. Further the impugned order is contrary to the order of this Court in W.P. No. 2107/2009. Despite these order copies being produced before the Revenue Officer he deliberately misinterprets these orders. For extraneous considerations the Revenue Officer passed the impugned order. In the circumstances respondent No. 1-BBMP is hereby directed to hold an enquiry against the Revenue Officer who passed the impugned order-Annexure L dated 29.11.2010 and to take suitable action against him. For the reasons stated above, the following;
ORDER
i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 29.11.201.0 Annexure L passed by the Revenue Officer of respondent No. 1-BBMP is hereby quashed.
iii. Respondent No. 1-BBMP is herby directed to enter the names of petitioners as khathedars of property in question forthwith.
iv. The Commissioner of respondent No. 1 - BBMP is hereby directed to hold an enquiry against the Revenue Officer who passed the impugned order at Annexure L and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.