A14 1 Al'
[N 'l'H}E3 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EAI\IOA;I,O_RE
DATED THIS TIIE 25TH DAY OR OCTOBER, 20I~0j
PRESENT
'mE I~IOI\I'I3LE MR. JUST£CE.V,G.SA.B'F£I'I;H'i:T'"~._
THE HONBLE MRS.
BETWEEN: i L
S/() LATE
SENIOR Cl'l"I.Z£§N5§H1P NOT.'_cI. " IIVIED.
AGED AB'OUT'j72 Y'3EfL'&RS., QCCENIL;
R/O NQ.8, 6T:H{.VCR_O'-SS,
SAJAYANAOAR, * .j-~ I 1- '
BANGALORE, ' ' 'V
L APPELLANT
._ {By.SaI'iI s.M.cRAIxIp_RAsHEKAR, ADV.)
"I h BZ&Nf;;1§L>SRE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA
-. __ IJLANMNG AUTHORITY.
NO, 10, IST FLOOR, sI~IAI\I'I'I NAOAR,
S13 LIBELE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN.
" E';I.ORE RURAL DIST,
REP BY ITS MEIVIBER SECRETARY.
U DIRECTOR,
RENAISSANCE HOLDINGS 81 DEVELOPERS PVT
LTD, NO.I2, EST CROSS, 6TH MAIN".
MALLES}'1\NA.RAE\/I , BAN GALORE} 5 5 .
3 SOB}-IA LlF]§§S'.I"YLI*3,
SY. N035, TIMMEGOUDAN l~{OSAHAl.l.l VILLAGE
KASABA l"IOI3LI, I.)EVA.NAI"{.ALL} TOWN,
')
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR.
REsPoNi;i§;Nfrs
{By Sri: S.G.PAl\lDIT FOR R1, SRI KSUMAN
P.S.RAJAC'zOPAL FOR SR1 lVI.l\/LDESHPANDEE. AIJfV"., : '
THIS WRIT APPEAL 'l:S'"--~.FILFl.13: llU_/s'@iw..1 THE
KARNATAKA HIGH comm' ACT_"PRAY1N'o_ 'l"O.'.=SE27l' ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED 1N_H_'*-T_Hr._» WRIT PETITION
NO.1028/2010[GM~RES']'DATED13../:01."/2010.
This Appeal coniingzlolnlolr Hearing this
day, SABHAHITJ..,:4'ti:e1iv€=;iie<l l-.()Vl'l'€t',t""v_"'~"-llfulgi "
lthelllulrlsuccessftll petitioner in
W.P.Nol.l}.Ofi$/ by the order passed by
the l€f£:1I'I1€Cl.Zl'""Si1'1glV6 j._uo~ge"de1ted 13.1.2010 wherein the writ
petjtilorii dis"I11i.s.s.ed. declining to interfere with the
's2iii'e.tio11§3ld lpl4é{r1..wl1icl1 was impugned in the writ petition by
holhciing disputed question of fact in the title has to
be the Competent civil Court.
The'. appellant lierein filed W.P.l.\lo.1028/201.0
cliall_e11ging the Sanetionecl plan dated 1.2.3.200'? issued by
first respondeni.~Bangalore Iriieriiationzil Airport Area.
Planning Authority in favour of the second and third
lespondeni. in respe(*t: of petii'.io1ier's land bearing No.56 {Old
mg
,3s
Sy. No.35] measuring 4 acres situated at '1'immeg0uda.n
Hosahalli Village. Kasaba Hobli. Devanahalli
Bangalore Rural District. as per Am1exure--B8
petition.
3. It is the case of that
Nagappa S/0.ML1r1is\Arani8i}:)..§a_ Awgas land bearing
Sy. No.35 [new Sy.N0.5fi}-- situated at
Timrneg0udan_f:ids:}iii8.lli_Villiige, called schedule
property}. 6.' and Subbarayappa
S/K pfoperty under the
registei-ed' 's'ale 10.5.1945 Vide Registered
No.152.3/44!4"5.V_:'8o¢:1§'i., Volume 488, Pages 167 to 188
V' "1#egisi.eieaji¢in{he 0fii'CE'5"0i'V the Sub~Registrar Devanahalli. The
ii_eéQi_'d' produced as per Annexure B1 to 1312. It
is i'fiifthe1f'"'e:é;"er1'ed that the name of Subbarayappa.
0.AVea1fcippa appears in Coiumn No.9 and 12 from the year
A 2004 which indicates tliat the said Subbarayappa
' wé'?,gs khatedar and possessor of land in Sy.No.56.
4. It is the f1.u"f.'ner of the pe1ii.i011er fzhai: after the
death ol'Sub1:)a1*ayappa, the name of his legal represemiemves
D.S.Neeiakaz'1i:aia}.1. and I).S.Shiva1'1a181d appeaiwzd in the
K893/.'§
...;;§,...
record of rights and the petitioner has pu1'el1a'sed.:""t£ha'
schedule property on 2.12.2008 from
representatives of Subbarayappa S.../o. it.llisl_l_:E..he._V
furthei' case of the petitioner that
been issued without notice"i_,o"---his \A"'6I1ClO.I'S: _a.n'e§"'--w.il:h01it. v '
Considering the revenue prodii.ced_:V._Al3§flt'-bre t.he
planning authority. tlA1e'l.l_in2i_piig'nevd:sanctioned plan is
liable to be set aside as it=-- and violative of
Article 14 According to the
petitioner, tlie no to sanction plan in
bearihg Sy.No.56 in favour of
second and the sanctioned plan is
liableto the
V. The:pe'i,i'i:iQn was resisted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Judge after hearing t.he counsel
appea1’i11_g’ib.rl”lthe petitioner passed order on 13.1.2010 at the
:”‘st..age of.-~151’e1irz1i11ary hearing itself and held that having
_li–~.ega’rd to the contention of the learned counsel for the
.. _peiitionerwappeliant herein wherein the petitioner requested
‘this court to issue an order of injunction restraining
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from putting up c:onstruct.ioi1 and
that. the title of the petitioner was required to be established
before a eivii c:ou.1’t., an order of i.nj1i3’1ction Could not be
‘$.53
lI5’3?lt1’enei¢’;i I
,5W
greinted. That time and again, it. has been held t.hat.__the
reflection of the name in the revenue records wot_;vlvd_:”-not
confer title and hence, the disputed question of .
not be gone into by this court in \”».*-r1’it1′}u~risdli£Tt.i’e1.1′ of
court since the petitioner clamietlz to have .pl:l37C1’1«t7iSfi?(:lV the
property in the year 2009g__and the__setn_etio1ied. of the
year 2007 and no sale deed:”wasV_ to show that
he has any seniblanee ottitlegf ‘learned singie
Judge held tot: pronounce as to
whether the€pet’it:iV’:irierll to the property in
ql1€SlLiO1″lyi11’vE?t’ V226 of the Constitution.
of Endia. lA’B.Veing “‘o_;_t,:/’tlie order of the learned single
judge E. dated l”1s:.Vi;2o1o;- this appeal is filed by the writ
{-
/”, No’t.vie”e,Vgwrijsvissued to the respondents and respondent.
N0.3″‘««.i1a\z_e’fiiled their statenient of objections denying the
é1’Jeifn1er1t.s”n1ade in the writ petition and contended that
_ res’p.oI1=dente No.2 purchased various properties situated at
it TiIi1II1€gOL1dEil1 imlosahalli Village under registered sale deeds
«ilbetiween 8″” and 12*” I’e.b1’ua1*y, 1986 for vaitizzible
consideration. Appliezitions for conversion of land zneastiring
4 acres in respect: of the property was filed in the year 1995.
i*eq1.zired Lirider Section 95 01’ the Kzuiiatakai Leirid
there is an exparte order of temporary injunction
in the said suit against respondent Nos. 2 and.–A”3*–. : ‘
Counsei also submitted that the qu_esti.oI1 of
sanctioned plan cannot be granted:”»by1’_th~e a:ui:_h’crit.yVV
Section 76 of the Karnataka Tow’1’r.oand C3ot1ntryd’~;Act, * it
1961 as the bar of legal proceedpi»n_gs_V_vi.s State
Government, the P1annin–g;:A1iti1or%:it§t public servant or
persons duly appointed-i’~or._ this Act, in
respect of purporting to be
done under it or the rules made
‘thereunder. 1 single judge ought to have
gone into’ and considered whether the
sanctiorxed p4I.a:1.Ais’i1″1 accordance with law and ought to have
.,,_a1ioWedE»–the”writ petition as the impugned order sanctioning
=p1V3..’i’.(1,’VViI’._Cif~I’€Sp()I’1d€I’1t Nos. 2 and 3 is arbitrary and
perzfersef. . L’ ‘T
12. senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3
V.so.bmitted that the enquiry has been held in accordance with
‘ and the petitioner has purchased the property during
” “the pendency of the proceedings before the Civil Court” The
property has been converted in the year 1995 and he has
made available the original records which contained the
W
-9-
proceedings pertaining to the issue of original sanctmned
plan dated 12.3.2007 and also niodified plan dated _
and submits that oid Sy.No.35 is now given .
1′.hCl’@f()I’E3, modification has become 1″ie’eesis”ai3′?.
13. Learned counsel for the i’es.}3ondeAnt.=
that the second 1’esp0nr:ient oirtihe ‘property
having valid title to the is not the
owner of the property:-xvhifini sanctioned.
14. In repljini for the appellant
Submm¢d,(hat.A:i;fi of Section 42 of the
Act since’._&the_re regard to petitioner and
second respo-ndent’ -regarding the schedule property. the
– . §2I1qL1v_’:’f_’:J. oaght to have___be.en heid.
“given our careful consideration to the
contentionsdraipsed by the parties and scrutinized the
‘ Vrnat.eria1. on record.
”_16.” ‘ii-Theiiiniziteriai on record eleariy shows that there is
about titie to the schedule property bearing
“..VVVSyCNo.35. New No. 56. measuring 4 acres of
HTimrnegoudanhalli Village. Devanahalli Taluk between the.
petitioner and the second respondent and his predecessors
\;<Za§§
alt)»
in title. It is not in dispute that the property was coimerted
For non~ag.riculi.ural purpose in 1995 and tl1ereal7t.ei*–._on
12.3.1997 sanctioned plan was ordered and ~
purchased the property. lt. is also__tnot__ in the
predecessor title had filed 0.3001 /08' sou';gh't..:t'er:}}:)orary
injunction which was rejected the suit was
eventually withdrawn .tli:"/'–l.'V[l0l'eiidency of the said
suit, the petit1one_r property on
2.12.2008 petitioner has
purchased ytendor who according to
the to schedule property is after
the plan' 12.3.2007 and modified on
7.7.2007 and et:VheV.aVerme"r:its made in the writ. petition and
.«4./'."t:h€':"'6bjiEC1,i0I1 st.ate1'nent filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
there is dispute about the title t.o the
praperty. It is well settled that disputed questions
of fact vizlviixicli pertain to title t.o the property cannot: be gone
intoin exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court and though.
the learned counsel for the appellant subniitted that the
petitioner is only seeking quashing of the sanctioned plan
the same cannot be gone into in View of.' Section 76 of the
Act. The averinents of the counsel is not helpful in the
present case and even Section 42(3) provides that decision of
~12~
The original records shaii be 1"et.urr1ed ta respQ–;'1<J1eI1t
No.1 after Gbtaining acknoxvledgenlent.
sai%§%Y
T %