Karnataka High Court
Smt Annapurnamma W/O V.Mahadevaiah vs The Town Panchayath, Mariyamanahalli on 25 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10531
WP No. 103526 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.103526 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VAIDHYAMATH ANNAPURNAMMA
W/O V. MAHADEVAIAH,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HOUSE NO.3/291, 248A,
WARD NO.8 (OLD WARD NO.3),
KUDLIGI ROAD,
MARIYAMMANHALLI TOWN,
HOSAPETE TALUK,
DIST: BALLARI-583222.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI AND SRI CHETAN B. PATIL,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE TOWN PANCHAYATH,
MARIYAMANAHALLI,
Digitally
signed by V MARIYAMANAHALLI TOWN,
N BADIGER
Location:
HIGH
HOSAPETE TALUK,
VN
BADIGER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIST: BALLARI-583222,
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
R/BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
2024.07.27
11:25:29
+0530
2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MARIYAMANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARI-583222.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
I. PASS A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER NATURE
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 18/05/2020
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10531
WP No. 103526 of 2024
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING
NO.Pa.Pam/MaMaHalli/67/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
II. PASS A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO ISSUE TO THE PETITIONER KHATHA-CERTIFICATE
(FORM NO.3) AS PER THE APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND
ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri S.S.Beturmath for respondent No.1, learned HCGP for respondent No.2.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is the owner of property bearing house No.3/291 situated at Ward No.8 (Old Ward No.3) Mariyamanahalli, having secured the same by virtue of a sale deed dated 06.10.1989, which is annexed along with this petition. Initially the property fell within the jurisdiction of Mariyamanahalli Gram Panchayat, pursuant to the purchase, the petitioner's name was entered in the revenue records in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner has been paying tax pertaining to the property regularly. This being the state of affairs, the Gram Panchayat was upgraded to Town Panchayat and automatically within the -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10531 WP No. 103526 of 2024 jurisdiction of the 1st respondent which was governed by the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. In view of transfer of the subject property in the name of the petitioner, which existed in the revenue records of the Gram Panchayat, the property in the tax register and extract ought to be entered in the municipal records and an obligation is cast upon respondent No.1 to issue khata extract in Form No.3. The petitioner accordingly filed an application on 12.07.2019 with the 1st respondent for issuance of khata extract. But the same was not adhered to on the ground that respondent No.2 had made a representation claiming that the property belongs to respondent No.2 and petitioner had illegally occupied the said property and objected to the issuance of khata extract in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.1, in view of the objections filed by respondent No.2, refused to issue khata extract in favour of petitioner and passed an impugned endorsement dated 18.05.2020, vide Annexure-E, which is questioned before this Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has secured a registered -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10531 WP No. 103526 of 2024 sale deed, the title of the property vests with the petitioner. The objection so filed by respondent No.2 will have to be considered in accordance with law if there is any cogent material placed to show the title and respondent No.1 will have to act in accordance with section 111 to 113 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Once the petitioner has produced the sale deed to show that he is the absolute owner of the property and the revenue records earlier existed in the name of petitioner in the Gram Panchayat, duty is cast upon the authorities i.e., the 1st respondent to enter the name of the petitioner and issue khata extract unless contrary is proved by the objecting parties i.e., respondent No.2 by placing cogent material before the authority.
4. In a similar matter a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Smt.M.S.Rajeshwari and others vs. The Joint Commissioner and another in W.P.No.8494/2016, disposed of on 02.09.2022, while dealing with the provisions of section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, which is similar and para-materia to that of section 114 of -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10531 WP No. 103526 of 2024 this Municipalities Act, 1964, allowed the petition in favour of the petitioner and directed respondent No.1 to register the khata and issue khata extract in favour of the petitioner.
5. Learned HCGP contends that the property belongs to the 2nd respondent and therefore the khata cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 has not passed any order in view of the objections raised by respondent No.2.
6. Merely filing of objection will not curtail the rights of respondent No.1 to issue the khata extract or enter the names in the municipal records. Respondent No.1 will have to act in accordance with law considering the documents placed before it and act in accordance to sections 111 to 114 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, upon being satisfied with the objections, if any, based on any cogent material, deal with the issue in accordance with law.
7. In the present case nothing is brought to the notice of this Court to show respondent No.2 has better title or any order is in his favour with regard to transfer of -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10531 WP No. 103526 of 2024 property. Under the circumstances, the petitioner having produced the sale deed and the earlier entries made in the Gram Panchayat in her name will have to be adhered to by respondent No.1. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsement dated 18.05.2020 passed by the 1st respondent, vide Annexure-E is quashed.
iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.1 to enter the name of petitioner in the municipal records.
iv) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.1 to issue khata certificate in Form No.3 in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of his order.
-7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10531 WP No. 103526 of 2024 v) If at all respondent No.2 claims to
have any right, title over the property, he is at liberty to move the appropriate forum to declare its rights and thereafter place such material before the authority.
Sd/-
JUDGE MRK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32