AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
Petitioner claiming to have purchased the premises bearing sy.no.135/46 of Bazaar Street, Ulsoor Civil Station under a registered sale deed dated 28.7.1975, apprehending it is illegal demolition by the respondent - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, has presented this petition calling in question the notice dated 31.8.2010 - Annexure-A calling upon the petitioner to produce relevant records relating to title to property; in addition, the relief of a direction to the respondents to produce the entire records leading to the issue of notice Annexure-A. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of respondent No. 3 inter alia contending that Shri Someshwara Temple, Ulsoor, in Bangalore City, is an ancient temple built by the founders of the city when declared as Muzrai Institution/Muzrai Temple its ownership vested with the Muzrai Department of the State of Karnataka. According to the respondent the Temple surrounded by vast extents of land was secured by stone compound wall, public road on all four sides, while the petitioner put up an illegal structure adjacent to the temple compound at the south eastern corner facing the east. According to the third respondent, it came to its knowledge that a Kalyani(water tank) used for the purpose of the temple, and situated on the north eastern side of the compound wall of the temple was buried for several years, over which encroachments were made and therefore, the Deputy Director of Land Records, City Survey, Bangalore having conducted a survey of CTS. 2627 belonging to the temple, submitted a report over encroachments and unauthorised construction put up on the footpath and the road surrounding the temple, one of which was identified as that belonging to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the third respondent, it is stated directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to take action over the encroachments and clear the foot path and roads surrounding the temple following which, the second respondent issued a notice -Annexure-A, to which the petitioner submitted a reply through legal Counsel, inter alia stating that the City Civil Court declared the said passage as private property. At paragraph 6 of the statement of objections, it is stated that demolition of the building commenced in the early hours of 08.09.2010 and by the time the order of this Court, to stop the demolition, was communicated, in fact, the entire demolition work was complete and debris remained. It is stated that the petitioner has no right, title and interest over the property muchless over the 13 feet original public road running north to south.
The petition is also opposed by filing statement of objections of respondents 1 and 2 reiterating the contentions in the statement of objections of the third respondent and the fact that the petitioner has no right, title and interest over the property in question while the street measuring 13 feet in width is public property.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
The first submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner when arraigned as defendant No. 4 in O.S.No.3042/1980 instituted by the Muzrai Department of the State and as party respondent No. 4 in RFA.No.637/1995, the said judgments are binding on the State is unacceptable. Defendant No. 4 in O.S.No.3042/1980 is described as ''Chanraj, major, son of Mohn Lal, Jewelery Shop, Bazaar street, Ulsoor, Bangalore", so also, is the very same description of respondent No. 4 in RFA.No.637/1995, while in this petition, the petitioner is described as "Sri Chainraj, son of Late Shri C.Motilal, aged about 66 years, residing at No. 45, Car street, Halasuru Civil Station, Bangalore- 560008". The names of the parties are not identical or similar and therefore, petitioner cannot claim to be the very same defendant No. 4 in the suit and respondent No. 4 in the RFA.
The next submission of the learned Counsel that there being no dispute over the title to immovable property, the respondents have taken law into their own hands to demolish the building calling for interference, is also unacceptable.
It is apparent from the relevant positions taken by the parties that there is considerable dispute in regard to the material facts and that the dispute is of a nature which cannot be conveniently adjudicated in this Writ Petition. It is a dispute which seems to me as more appropriate for adjudication before a competent Civil Court and therefore, must relegate the petitioner to a Civil Court. In that view of the matter, Annexure- A - notice calling upon the petitioner to produce the records cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, occasioning grave injustice to the petitioner calling for interference. The petition is accordingly rejected. If the petitioner were to institute a suit before a competent Court of law in respect of the lis brought before Court, it is needless to state that the Court need not be influenced by any of the observations made supra. Interim order to maintain status quo in respect of the schedule property to continue for a period of two weeks.