Judgment:
ORDER
K. Bhakthavatsala, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8-9-2003 bearing No. D.C.A (DHA) PR/5649/2002-2003 (Annexure-J) on the file of the Second Respondent.
2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are represented by the learned Standing Counsel Sri. T. Jayaprakash Respondent No. 3 is represented by the learned Counsel Sri. G. Chandrashekharaiah.
3. The learned Counsels for the parties submitted that the Writ Petition itself may be disposed. Therefore, heard arguments for final disposal.
4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under;
The property bearing No. 6 in Sy. No. 47 situated in Byrasandra village, 57/60th Division of Bangalore City Corporation, measuring 40' x30' was purchased by the petitioner under a Registered Sale Deed dated 7-8-1998 from one S.A. Lakshman and since then the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and the katha also was transferred in favour of the petitioner as per the endorsement dated 16.8.1999 (Annexure-f). Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice from the Respondent No. 2 as to why the katha endorsement issued in favour of the petitioner shall not be cancelled. The Second Respondent after holding an enquiry passed an order at Annexure-J and cancelled the katha made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in question by his order dated 8.9.2003. This is impugned in this Writ Petition on the ground that as per Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (in short 'the Act'), the Respondent No. 2 had no power to cancel the katha beyond the period of three years from the date of transfer of katha and among other grounds.
5. The Respondents 1 and 2 have filed joint Statement of Objections in support of Annexure-J.
6. During the course of argument, Sri P.S. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 114A of the Act, the Commissioner of Corporation will have to exercise the power of review within the period of three years from the date of such recording of transfer of title to reopen the case and pass order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order at Annexure-J has been passed beyond the period of three years, and therefore, impugned order is liable to be quashed.
7. Admittedly as per Annexure-F, the Bangalore City Corporation has transferred katha in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property bearing No. 6-5 situated in Byrasandra Village. It appears that Respondent No. 3 made an application to the Respondent No. 2 on 13.1.2000 alleging that the petitioner has got katha transferred in his name in respect of the property bearing No. 5-4 by exercising misrepresentation and therefore, the katha made in favour of the petitioner should be cancelled and the same should be transferred in favour of Respondent No. 3. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 by his endorsementdated 7.2.2000 directed Respondent No. 3 to go to Civil Court and seek appropriate remedy. But later on the Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the Revenue Inspector's Report dated 3.3.2003 initiated proceedings, and ultimately cancelled the katha made in favour of the petitioner.
Section 114A of the Act reads as under:-
'Where the Commissioner either suomoto or otherwise, after such enquiry as he considers necessary is satisfied that any transfer of title under Section 114 was got recorded in the Corporation register by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete material, he may within a period of three yeas from the date of such recording of transfer of title reopen the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit.'
8. It is crystal clear from the language employed in Section 114A of the Act that within a period of three years from the date of such recording of transfer of title reopen the case and pass such orders with respect thereto. In the instant case, katha was transferred in favour of the petitioner by an endorsement dated 13.10.1999. The petitioner received the Notice dated 18.6.2003. On the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Officer dated 3.3.2003 which itself is beyond the period of three years, there is no impediment to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent No. 2 has acted contrary to Section 114A of the Act, and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated.
9. The learned Counsel Sri Jayaprakash appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 submits that the sale deed dated 17.11.1999 made in favour of Respondent No. 3 is in relation to the property bearing No. 1/1 in Sy. No. 47, Byrasandra. If the contention of the Corporation were to be that the property bearing No. 1/1 is quite different from the property mentioned in Annexure -F, there was no need for the Respondent No. 2 to cancel the katha endorsement made in favour of the petitioner. Since, the petitioner's case is that he purchased the property on 7.8.1998 and the Respondent No. 3 submits that he purchased the same property by a sale deed dated 17.11.1999, it is for the parties to approach the Competent Civil Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. Under such circumstances, it is suffice to hold that the impugned order at Annexure J is liable to be quashed and restore the katha endorsement made in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-F with an observation that the parties may approach the appropriate Civil Court for appropriate relief.
11. Hence, I pass the following.
The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-J is quashed and Katha made in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-F is restored. No Costs.