Judgment:
ORDER
1. W.P.Nos.34138-343 39/10 and W.P.Nos.34223-34230/10 and W.P.No.34404/3 0 are clubbed., heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as they involve the same set of facts.
2. Sri X.M. Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 34138-34139/10 and W.P.Nos. 34223-34230/10 submits that the petitioners are the owners of the lands in question. He further submits that their ownership is recognized by the Mysore City Corporation. The petitioners have been paying the property tax to the said local body. The petitioners could not have the transaction registered because of the prohibition prevailing in the matter of registering the revenue lands. He further submits that the petitioners have put up the construction. They have also made the necessary application under the Akrama-Sakrama Scheme.
3. Sri Joseph emphatically submits that the petitioners' properties in question are not at al' acquired by the Government or the Mysore Urban Development Authority ( MUDA' for short). According to him the confusion has arisen because the first respondent MUDA has not properly identified the lands belonging to itself and the lands belonging to the private parties. He submits that the mutation extracts show the extent of the land at Survey No.132 and 133 belonging to MUDA as nil. Therefore, the first respondent MUDA has no legally recognizable interest on the properties in question.
4. Ms. P.C. Vinitha, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.34404/10 submits that the petitioner has purchased the property bearing Survey No. 132/133 by a sale deed. She has constructed the house and obtained the electricity connection. She has even being paying the property tax regularly to the local body. She submits that the petitioner has taken the electricity connection. As the petitioner is also belonging to economically backward class, the respondent MUDA could do well by protecting the construction and possession of the petitioner.
5. Sri Vivekananda, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent MUDA submits that the land measuring 3 acres 35 guntas standing at Survey number 132 and 133 was compulsorily acquired by the Government for the benefit of MUDA from the erstwhile owner one Smt. Kempamma. He submits that Smt. Kempamma has even received the compensation. He points out that none of the petitioners are in a position to trace their title to any registered document. As their source of title itself is not there, the question of giving any relief to them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not arise at all, is the submission of Sri Vivekananda.
6. Sri Vivekananda further submits that out of 3 acres 35 guntas, 1 acre 32 guntas is given to the Slum Clearance Board (respondent No.2 in W.P.Nos.34138-34139/10 and W.P.Nos.34223-34230/10). He also points out that the sale deed (Annexure-A) to W.P.No.34404/10 is on 5/- stamp paper, which is also not registered. He further submits that there is no property bearing Survey No.132/133.
7. Sri S. Raju, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in W.P.Nos.34138-34139/10 and W.P.Nos.34223-34230/10 submits that no relief whatsoever is sought as against the respondent No.2. He also submits that the petitioners have not produced any document to show that they own the properties in question.
8. Whether the petitioners' properties fall outside the land standing at Survey No.132 and 133, whether the lands in question belong to the respondent MUDA or to the petitioners, whether any property bearing No.132/133 is existing at all, etc., are all the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be resolved in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No clinching or registered document is produced to establish that the petitioners are the recorded owners of the properties in question. Whether the identity of the properties are proper or not, can also not be gone into in these petitions.
9. In the Court's considered view the ends of justice would be met by passing the following order:
i) The petitioners shall appear before the Commissioner of the first respondent MUDA and produce the documents in support of their ownership within one week from today.
ii) If the Commissioner is satisfied that the properties in question belong to the petitioners, he shall not demolish the petitioners' properties and shall not dispossess them there from.
iii) If the Commissioner is satisfied that the petitioners are not the owners of the properties in question and on the other hand, it is the MUDA, which is the owner or if he finds that there are complicated questions of title involved, he shall pass the order accordingly.
iv) If there are complicated question of title involved, it is necessary that the concerned parties have to approach the Civil Court. It is not advisable for the Commissioner to decide the complicated questions of title.
If the Commissioner of MUDA passes the order either holding that the petitioners ere not the owners of the properties in question or holding that the complicated question of title are involved, it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the said order before the competent Civil Court. The Commissioner of MUDA shall pass the order on the petitioners' cases within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the petitioners' documents in support of there owning the properties.
The first respondent MUDA and the second respondent Slum Clearance Board shall not precipitate the crisis like, demolishing the existing structure or dispossessing the petitioners from the properties in question for a period of 17 days. Needless to observe that all the contentions are kept open. It is for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court, if need be and seek the appropriate remedies including appropriate interim orders from the competent Civil Court.
10. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
11. At this juncture Sri Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the house property belonging to the fifth petitioner in W.P.Nos.34138-34139/10 and W.P.Nos.34223-34230/10 is already demolished by MUDA. He presses for a direction to the respondent MUDA to pay the damages.
12. The question of giving a direction for the payment of damages would not arise in a case of this nature, where the ownership of the property itself is in dispute. Be it as it may, it is always open to the said petitioner to seek the relief of damages by filing a duly constituted civil suit.