Skip to content


Manorama Vs. Jayabore Gowda and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrite Petn. No. 1060 of 1967
Judge
Reported inAIR1969Kant263; AIR1969Mys263; ILR1968KAR585; (1968)2MysLJ133
ActsLand Acquisition Act; Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Sections 3-A, 3-B and 3(9); Bangalore Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1963
AppellantManorama
RespondentJayabore Gowda and anr.
Excerpt:
.....of lokayukta or upalokayukta. - such inclusion was possible under section 3-b of the city of bangalore municipal corporation act, 1949 read with section 3(9) of that act and that the effect of such inclusion is stated in section 3-a which provides that on such inclusion, the provisions of the corporation act become applicable to that area and all imposts under the corporation act become applicable and that all statutory instruments such as notifications, rules, bye-laws, and the like made under the act, operate within it. the only power which could vest in the corporation was the power of municipal administration and to apply to the said area all notifications, rules, bye-laws, orders, directions, and the like, made under the act and to levy and collect imposts created..........relevant points of time. the other argument advanced by him was that under the provisions of the city of bangalore municipal corporation act, 1949, as it stands amended by mysore act 27 of 1963 (the city of bangalore municipal corporation (amendment) act, 1963), the area in which the property which is the subject matter of this writ petition is situate, was included in the city of bangalore and that thereafter the corporation recognised the possession of the petitioner with respect to the land and that such possession which was recognised by the corporation entitles her to seek the directions which she has sought in this writ petition.4. there is a serious controversy in regard to the question whether the area in which this land is situated was included in the city of bangalore. such.....
Judgment:

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. The land to which this writ petition relates was admittedly acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and the original owner of the property subsequently made an alienation in favour of the petitioner in the year 1960 after the land had vested in Government.

2. In the year 1965, the City Improvement Trust Board, which claims to be a transferee of the property from Government, leased the property to respondent 1. Respondent 1, the lessee, it appears has begun the construction of a petrol pump on that land. The petitioner now seeks in this writ petition a direction that respondent 1, the lessee, and respondent 2, the City Improvement Trust Board, should not interfere with the petitioner's possession of the property and that they should be restrained from digging up the foundation or from raising any construction on it.

3. On behalf of the petitioner the claim asserted is that she is in possession of the property after she purchased it under a registered sale deed in the year 1960 from the original owner Krishnappa. Mr. Mariappa, who did not dispute that the property was acquired by Government, which, according to him, continued to remain with her at all relevant points of time. The other argument advanced by him was that under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, as it stands amended by Mysore Act 27 of 1963 (the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1963), the area in which the property which is the subject matter of this writ petition is situate, was included in the City of Bangalore and that thereafter the Corporation recognised the possession of the petitioner with respect to the land and that such possession which was recognised by the Corporation entitles her to seek the directions which she has sought in this writ petition.

4. There is a serious controversy in regard to the question whether the area in which this land is situated was included in the City of Bangalore. Such inclusion was possible under Section 3-B of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 read with Section 3(9) of that Act and that the effect of such inclusion is stated in Section 3-A which provides that on such inclusion, the provisions of the Corporation Act become applicable to that area and all imposts under the Corporation Act become applicable and that all statutory instruments such as notifications, rules, bye-laws, and the like made under the Act, operate within it.

5. While according to Mr. Mariappa the area with which we are concerned was included in the Corporation area under the provisions of Section 3-B, Mr. Jayaram, appearing for respondent 1, and Mr. Narayanappa, appearing for the City Improvement Trust Board, repudiate the truth of the allegation that there was such inclusion. The only document on which Mr. Mariappa depends is a gazette notification which purports to be a draft notification in which it was proposed to include the area with which we are concerned, within the limits of the City of Bangalore. Mr. Mariappa, however, says that there was also a final notification. But no such final notification has been produced before us.

On the contrary, on behalf of respondent 1, a communication addressed to him by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore has been produced in which it is stated that the area was not included. But this communication is not very clear and we are not in a position to say to which area it refers. So, we should not place any dependence upon it.

6. However that may be, what is clear is that it is not proved that there was any such inclusion under the provision of Section 3(9) and 3B of the Corporation Act, Moreover, even if there was such inclusion, it is clear that such inclusion would not have divested Government of their ownership of the property of which they became owners when there was an acquisition. Nor can it divest the Trust Board of its ownership, after the property was transferred to it. The only power which could vest in the Corporation was the power of Municipal administration and to apply to the said area all notifications, rules, bye-laws, orders, directions, and the like, made under the Act and to levy and collect imposts created under the Corporation Act.

Therefore, it is clear that notwithstanding the fact that there was such inclusion--and on that question we express no opinion in this writ petition--the Corporation did not become the owner of the property which continued to belong to the Government and on transfer by them to the Trust Board. The Trust Board had the right to make a lease of the property to respondent 1, and respondent 1 acquired all the rights created under the instrument of lease executed in his favour.

7. But Mr. Mariappa contended that even so if the petitioner was in possession of the property, that possession has to be protected by appropriate directions which we should issue. In support of the allegation that he is in possession, the petitioner depends upon a demand notice produced before us which purports to have been issued by the Special Revenue Officer of the Corporation. It is refers which can assist its identification. Mr. Mariappa then depended upon another communication produced by respondent 1 issued to a company called Burmah Shell. But that can be of no assistance to the petitioner.

8. That being the position, and since it is repudiated on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner is in possession and since that matter raises controversial questions of fact as to who is actually in possession, this is not a case in which we can issue the directions prayed for by the petitioner. So we dismiss this writ petition. No costs.

9. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //