Karnataka High Court
Srinivas Bhimanna Menadal vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17387
WP No. 105358 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 105358 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRINIVAS BHIMANNA MENADAL,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O. MAREESHANTVEER NAGAR,
NEAR SHIVASHANT MANGAL BHAVAN,
KOPPAL-583231.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
KALMATH
SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
DHARWAD
BENCH OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
1. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16/08/2024 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.KONASA/KANDAYA/2024-25
VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
2. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO TRANSFER KHATA IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO PLOT BEARING 134 BEARING
MUNICIPAL MB NUMBER 9-7-680/762 SITUATED NEAR
BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, KOPPAL AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17387
WP No. 105358 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1-State as well as learned counsel Sri R.K.Kulkarni for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 16.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2 and for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to transfer khata in favour of the petitioner in respect to plot bearing No.134 of Muncipal MB No.9-7-680/762 situated near Basaveshwar Circle, Koppal.
3. Petitioner purchased a plot bearing No.134 bearing Muncipal MB No.9-7-680/762 comprising out of Sy.No.180 and Sy.No.181 situated within the municipal limits of Koppal Town Municipal Council, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 50 feet in the name of his wife by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 13.12.2006 from one Chandsab Kavalur. Pursuant to the purchase of the -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17387 WP No. 105358 of 2024 said property, the name of wife of petitioner was entered in the property tax register and she paid the taxes regularly. Unfortunately, the wife of petitioner died on 15.11.2023, pursuant to which the petitioner applied for change of katha in the name of petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that after purchase of the property in the name of his wife from the previous owner, the khata was changed in the name of his wife. Endorsement was given to that effect and the petitioner and his wife had paid the taxes towards the property mentioned herein above. Pursuant to the death of his wife, petitioner made an application for change of katha in his name, which came to be rejected by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D dated 16.08.2024 on the ground that the layout in which the petitioner purchased the land has not been approved by the Town Planning Authorities.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse, the same is unsustainable in law in view of fact that the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17387 WP No. 105358 of 2024 petitioner lawfully purchased the property, which earlier existed in the name of erstwhile owner and pursuant to the purchase, the khata was transferred in the name of his wife and pursuant to her death, the petitioner made an application to change khata in his name, which has been rejected on flimsy grounds of the approval not having been taken from the Town Planning Authority.
5. Petitioner relies upon a Judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of B.Kemparaju vs. Bengalore Development Authority and Another in Writ Petition No.18671/2022 dated 11.07.2023 in support of his case and seeks to allow his petition
6. Per Contra, the learned counsel Sri R.K.Kulkarni representing respondent No.2 opposes the petition and sustains the order passed by respondent No.2. He files a memo producing the circulars issued by the Government of Karnataka in respect of change of kata to the sites and plots, which are not having authority and approval from the Town Planning Authority dated 22.03.2017 and 05.01.2018. It is vehemently contended by learned -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17387 WP No. 105358 of 2024 counsel for respondent No.2 that it is within the prerogative of respondent No.2 and the State to initiate action on those plots, houses and sites, which have not obtained proper permission/approval from the concerned authority, including the Town Planning Authority and who have illegally constructed the properties would not be entitled to issuance of khata and action could be initiated by the respondent authorities.
7. Therefore, learned counsel sustains the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar circumstances, the coordinate bench of this Court in B.Kemparaju's case stated supra, having considered the similar issue came to the conclusion that registration of khata in the name of purchaser cannot be refused on the ground that maintenance of layout by the Society is not in accordance with the layout plan. If that be so, it is always open to respondent No.1 to take appropriate action in accordance with law with regard to deficiency in the layout. That would however not come in the way of -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17387 WP No. 105358 of 2024 considering the request for change of khata as stated in paragraph No.4 of the above said Judgment. The learned counsel Sri.R.K.Kulkarni contends that in the above referred Judgment it was the case of the Bengaluru Development Authority approved layout and it was not a case where the layout formed by the private body having obtained necessary permission, approvals from the statutory authorities including the Town Planning Authority. Therefore, the present case is different from the case referred by the learned counsel supra.
8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents No.2, apparently it is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of property and prior to him, his wife was the owner of the said property, having purchased the same by virtue of a registered Sale Deed and khata came to be transferred in her name. Tax is also paid in her name. Pursuant to her death, the petitioner made an application for change of khata and continued to pay the tax for the property. The purchase of the property, ownership of the petitioner's wife and the petitioner are -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17387 WP No. 105358 of 2024 not in dispute. The dispute according to the respondent No.2 is that the private layout in which the plot of the petitioner is located is unauthorized and no permission and approval has been granted by the concerned statutory authority, namely the Town Planning Authority. Therefore, the khata cannot be issued as it is an illegal layout and plot is located in the unapproved layout. This specific aspect has been considered by the aforementioned Judgment in the case of B.Kemperaju's, where it is clearly held by my esteemed brother that the registration of khata in the name of purchaser cannot be refused on the ground that the maintenance of layout by a Society is not in accordance with the layout plan or for that matter the petitioner's site falls within the park or other civic area. If at all any such grievance arises, the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law for such deficiency in the layout. However, the same cannot come in the way of considering the request for change of katha.
9. In the present case on hand that the petitioner's wife who was the erstwhile owner, her name having been -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17387 WP No. 105358 of 2024 transferred, tax having been paid subsequently, the application is made by the petitioner for change of katha in his name and to permit him to pay the tax. I do not find any reason for respondent No.2 to refuse the change of khata or the name which existed in the name of deceased- wife of petitioner to be transferred in the name of petitioner. Of course, it would be within the prerogative and domain of respondent No.2 to initiate any action, if at all the petitioner seeks for construction of any building or licence to construct in the said plot to consider and pass suitable orders with regard to the validity or approval or non-obtaining of the permission as contemplated under law or the prevalent regulations of the Town Planning Authority or any other statutory authority as per law. Under the circumstances, I pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 16.08.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17387 WP No. 105358 of 2024
(iii) Writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to transfer the khata /change the name in favour of the petitioner with respect to plot bearing No.134 bearing Muncipal MB Number 9-7-680/762 situated near Basaveshwar Circle, Koppal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to any valid permission/approval or formation of layout whether obtained or not by the petitioner or its erstwhile vendors/owners from the concerned statutory authority.
(v) Respondents are at liberty to take suitable action in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10