Karnataka High Court
Mudassir vs State Of Karnataka on 27 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:34323
WP No. 21370 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 21370 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MUDASSIR
S/O M ANWAR JI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.340, DR. RAJ KUMAR ROAD,
SATHAGALLI LAYOUT, NAZARABAD MOHALLA,
MYSURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Digitally signed URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
by R DEEPA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JLB ROAD, MYSORE.
3. SPECIAL THASILDAR
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JLB ROAD, MYSORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF IDDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:34323
WP No. 21370 of 2023
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO.MYNA.PRA/VA.KA/8/2023-24
DTD 30.08.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-L, ISSUED BY THE R3 AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE
APPLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DTD 21.11.2017 AND
14.07.2020 VIDE ANNEXURES-G AND J AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO REGISTER THE RECTIFICATION DEED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT
CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES AT THE EARLIEST.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing of the endorsement dated 30.08.2023 vide Annexure-L issued by respondent No.3 and seeking for a mandamus directing respondent No.2 to register the rectification deed by correcting the boundaries.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
Site No.361, Sathegalli extension, Mysore measuring 12 by 18 mtrs was allotted to one M.S.Prasad S/o Maradirangaiah vide notification dated 23.01.1989, for -3- NC: 2024:KHC:34323 WP No. 21370 of 2023 consideration of Rs.36,300/-. The said M.S.Prasad died unmarried. Since his father had predeceased on 26.01.1992 itself, his mother Smt.M.B.Vedavathi succeeded to the said site and became the owner of the allotted property. The said Smt.M.B.Vedavathi paid an amount of Rs.1,18,400/- for transfer of khata and penalty over the difference of amount for the registration charges.
The sale deed was executed in favour of Smt.M.B.Vedavathi on 02.06.2017, mentioning the
boundaries of the Site No.361 as East by: water drain, West by: Site No.360, North by: Road, South by Site Nos.373, 374, measuring East to West 12 mtrs, North to South 18 mtrs, and khata was transferred as per the certificate dated 14.06.2017. The petitioner had purchased the property in question from Smt.M.B.Vedavathi under the registered sale deed dated 04.07.2017. After purchasing the said property, the petitioner submitted an application for change of khata in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 for collection of -4- NC: 2024:KHC:34323 WP No. 21370 of 2023 boundaries of the Site No.361, as the same is not correct in the registered sale deed executed in favour of his vendor.
3. Respondent No.3 rejected the representation of the petitioner for changing the boundaries claiming the same to be corrected in the registered sale deed vide requisition dated 23.08.2018. The petitioner made an attempt for correction of the boundaries of Site No.361 by submitting the representation to respondent No.2. The Technical section report was sought for and the same intimated as regards to the requirement of the change of boundaries. The respondent No.3 rejected the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for quashing impugned endorsement dated 30.08.2023 vide Annexure-L issued by respondent No.3.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:34323 WP No. 21370 of 2023
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 had allotted the site in question in favour of the son of vendor of the petitioner and before execution of the registered sale deed, he passed away and after his death, the said property was devolved upon the vendor of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner on 02.06.2017. The petitioner had purchased the said site in question from Smt.M.B.Vedavathi under the registered sale deed dated 04.07.2017. The petitioner came to know the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 02.06.2017 is incorrect. The petitioner submitted a representation for rectifying the boundaries by executing the rectification deed, wherein the respondent No.2 refused to execute the rectification deed on the ground that respondent No.2 has initiated disciplinary enquiry against the erring officer. Hence, the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 is incorrect and he also submits that respondent No.2 has failed to consider the representation submitted by the Technical section, wherein the Technical -6- NC: 2024:KHC:34323 WP No. 21370 of 2023 section recommended for change of boundaries. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned endorsement and prays to dismiss the petition. He also submits that respondent No.2 has initiated disciplinary enquiry against the erring officer. The delinquent employee may take undue advantage of this order. Hence, on these grounds, the Court may clarify in case if the writ petition is allowed this will not come in the way of the disciplinary enquiry and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is not in dispute that, Site No.361 was allotted in favour of M.S.Prasad S/o Maradirangaiah, he died leaving behind his mother Smt.M.B.Vedavathi. After his death, the said property has devolved upon Smt.M.B.Vedavathi. Thereafter, executed the registered -7- NC: 2024:KHC:34323 WP No. 21370 of 2023 sale deed by receiving Rs.1,18,400/- from the vendor of the petitioner and executed the registered sale deed dated 02.06.2017 in favour of Smt.M.B.Vedavathi, wherein the registered sale deed following boundaries are mentioned as: East by Water drain; West by Site No.360; North by Road; South by Site No.373, 374, measuring East to West 12 mtrs and North to South 18 mtrs. On the basis of registered sale deed dated 02.06.2017, khata was transferred in the name of Smt.M.B.Vedavathi. The said Smt.M.B.Vedavathi has executed the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 04.07.2017. On the basis of the registered sale deed the petitioner submitted an application for change of khata in his name. The respondent No.2 issued a certificate dated 23.08.2017, wherein, name of the petitioner is shown in the khata. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the representation to respondent No.2 to execute the rectification deed for collection of boundaries of Site No.361 in the registered sale deed.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:34323 WP No. 21370 of 2023
9. Respondent No.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner for changing the boundaries on the ground that the boundaries shown in the registered sale deed are correct and thereafter once again the petitioner made an attempt for correction of boundaries of Site No.361 by submitting the representation to respondent No.2. The Technical section was constituted and the technical section after inspection submitted a report and recommended for requirement of change of the boundaries to respondent No.3 The respondent No.3 without considering the report submitted by the Technical section, once again rejected the representation of the petitioner for execution of rectification deed i.e., for correction of the boundaries of original registered sale deed dated 02.06.2017, on the ground that there is pending enquiry against erring officer, as such, the representation cannot be considered.
10. The respondent No.2 has not disputed regarding the allotment of the site in question in favour of M.S.Prasad and also execution of registered sale deed in -9- NC: 2024:KHC:34323 WP No. 21370 of 2023 favour of Smt.M.B.Vedavathi dated 02.06.2017 and the said Smt.M.B.Vedavathi executed the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 04.07.2017. The Technical section has submitted it's report for change of boundaries. Merely, an enquiry is pending against the delinquent employee is not a ground to reject the representation of the petitioner. The reasons assigned by respondent No.3 for rejecting the representation of the petitioner is arbitrary and contrary to the report submitted by the Technical section.
11. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed.
Impugned endorsement dated 30.08.2023 vide Annexure-L is quashed.
Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner vide Annexures- G and J and execute the registered rectification
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34323 WP No. 21370 of 2023 deed in terms of Technical Section report correcting the boundaries within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Needless to say that the observation made in this order will not come in the way of respondent No.2 in initiating disciplinary enquiry against the erring officer.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS