IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18"!" DAY OF NOVEMBER :>;Ij3"o--O"'~._:
PRESENT
THE I-IONBLE MR. RD. DINAKARAN. CI+IIEE;iI_IS'IIcvE.V
AND
THE HONBLE MRIIIISTICE'--V.O«.SABIIAIIIIf'_' .
WRIT APPEAL No.8'-.4I§j2O07 {I;I_~3;BI.-;?3.
BETWEEN: A ' V
I MNPOONACHA '
S/O M.K.NANJAPPA _ .
AGED ABO.U'I'41 . I
R /AT NO, IIAOCAUVERI ..I:III,'AYA -- I _
BABUSIQPAISFA , .
BANCIAIXQREJ 43* » Q APPELLANTIS)
{By Sr:/."SrIIt :" SSE SIEAI', _
AND: " ' V _
I BRUHA:['B1KNG.AI;k9RE..
. MAHANAOARA PALIKE
,. BY I'IS"--cOMI\:IISSIONER
N IARE BANGALORE
T "'1'?I?I'x:', f5I'4"Vf<"J<;f:jII'¢$g.¥. COMMISSIONER
%BRUIIAfI"I3ANOAI.ORE
I 'MAHAIIAOARA PALEKE
N RSQUARE BANGALORE
*I'I~IE':DEPU'IY COMMISSIONER
* =_(MARI<E'Ij
BRUHAT BANGALORE
' 'MAHANAGARA PALEKE
DASAPPA HOSPITAL COMPOUND
II FLOOR BANGALORE)
4 THE A.SSfS'FANT REVENUE
OFFECIER {EAST}
RASOOL MARKET OFFICE
BANGALORE
5 SANJEEVA GHOEL
AGARWAL
MAJOR
S/O LATE MAHENDRA
SWARi\iA GHOEL
NO.306. 2ND MAIN
DOMLUR LAYOUT ' -_ «.
BANGALORE , _ iV2EsPc).N--L':EvNi'{s);
(By Sri/Srnt : M/S VISWANATH As'sQciAi*Es,' ADV. FDR R-1 'DO
R-4, M/s.\/AGDEVI AssD(;iATE.s;"'Eo_R R451 " "
* **4$$$*'
THIS w}?I9.ApPEAL LS --EiLED"'U}:s..4...TDE THE KARNATAKA
HIGH comm Ae'1*i'1i9.aAYm;s_*iD S'f¥3'I'*AS1_DE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE wRir_PE'fI='}'ioN No;i6v575.4'/200?? DATED 18/04/2007.
THIS ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING ON 'ri~iisfjjDA¥,_lA"'»sABHAH1T J.. DELIVERED THE
F'OLLOWli\lC--.;_'--ll . ' 7
"»JUDGMENT
;'w:r:ilt..appeal is filed by the petitioner in
- being aggrieved by the order dated
'V._?18/4/2V(5(}7 wherein, the learned Single Judge of this
":ifCDi:,ii'i:_l has- declined to interfere with the impugned
preceeding leading up to the passing of the order dated
'T7/4/200? in the matter of shop premises bearing
xfi
direction to the respondent not to interfere with the
possession over the Ashop premises,
possession of the petitioner.
3. Learned Single Judge :kfi:i:’t€I?.fl:’ the
counsel appearing for the petitilonelr
counsel appearing for the No.1 by
an order dated 18 petitioner has
put forth a false’ ciairrr. the context of
partnership into between
the fit case for not giving
effect licence in favour of the
petitionerqm was not the original
iicenicee/1esse.e” =at______al.1. If the authorities decline to
‘A«.a:«.:licence of this nature in favour of the
be said that the right of the
affected nor determined by the authorities
lll..:i’.gr:}¢{..,,.r;-fvvlllthe petitioner has any such right against
‘ respondent No.5 or against his predecessors, it is open
if to the petitioner to make good that claim or right before
any forum permitted in law and seek for consequential
A-K
relief thereupon. Accordingly, held that theregwas no
scope for interference in the matter of this
dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved
order dated 18/-4»/2007 dismissing thg_e”.wr,it the ‘
petitioner has preferred this appéeallgfi
4. We have heard theiuiearnged counselgvappearing
for the appellant; “‘–.lxcarrAi_edl.g’ :Vcoi:inse1._ appearing for
respondents into 4 arid-tlg1e”lefari1.e’d {coliinsel appearing
for respondent
appearing for the appellant
submivttelq. already been transferred
in narne the petitioner and by the impugned order
the-fsariie was cancelled and the learned Single Judge
the writ petition instead of giving
liberty petitioner to work out his remedy in
V”aCc0rda.nce with law.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for respondents submitted that petitioner was not the
original licensee and the entry was made wrongly.
7. We have given careful consideration.-=t_o the
contentions of the learned counsel app€EiTiIi§i”fdI7,.’V.th€
parties and scrutinized the material on record.. ‘M
8. The material on record,wouId7 clea1*i3}”shotw.’that
petitioner has not produced «any ‘material’v:to{.s«h.Qwi thatf’
he was entitled to get the name
as even according of the 5:11
respondent M . S iGhQe’i ~ partnership
deed on There is no
I’1’1a'[€l’1’VvaI__VvlIf;’J5fi1*i}§5/H was the original
Iicencee cancellation, an entry was
got done by suppressing the fact and
cont§end’ing thatw.h’e’_’vJas the original Iicencee has been
»righ_tly., It is well settled that mere entry in the
Katina confer any title over the property and
the éésarne always subject to declaration that may be
“..flgrari«ted before the Civil Court and there is serious
dispute about the succession to the property and
therefore, it is for the parties to approach the Civil
Court and-obtain necessary declaration and thereafter,
make an application for change of entry in the=.__Katha
and therefore. an order passed by the learhed-._S.ii1gle
Judge is justified and does not suffer from:
illegality as to Call for interfer.enceAin’_;
appeal.
9. Accordingly, thelltappeaih with
liberty to the out his
remedy in aceordancewwvith ffivil Court shall
dispose of Without being
influenced Katha as the same is
disputed ._andl1’é.s-:.§bg;§cit.:fo–.ti1e decision in the suit.
_____ Itgsficg
Sd/..
JUDGE
p lrifdexz Yes/No
‘V V A» Web Host: Yes/No
“‘mvs