Karnataka High Court
Shri M Kalidas S/O.Late ... vs The Town Panchayath, Mariyamanahalli on 21 February, 2023
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
WP No. 147891 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 147891 OF 2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT MEGAR SULOCHANA W/O. MEGAR NAGARAJ
AGE : 51 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : HOUSE NO.3/299, 252
WARD NO.8 (OLD WARD NO.3),
KUDLIGI ROAD,
MARIYAMMANHALLI TOWN,
HOSAPETE TALUK,
DIST: BALLARI-583 222
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
AND:
VINAYAKA B
V
VINAYAKA
Location: High
Court of 1. THE TOWN PANCHAYATH, MARIYAMANAHALLI
BV Karnataka,
Dharwad
Date:
MARIYAMANAHALLI TOWN,
2023.02.25
13:27:46
+0530
HOSAPETE TALUK,
DIST : BALLARI-583 222
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MARIYAMANHALLI POLICE STATION
HOSAPETE TALUK,DIST : BALLARI-58322
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S.BETURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R2)
-2-
WP No. 147891 of 2020
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER NATURE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 20/09/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.PA.PAN/
MAMAHA/KANDAYA/2018-19/09 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned endorsement at Annexure - G dated 20.09.2019 issued by respondent No.1 - The Town Panchayath, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of Khatha Certificate in Form No.3 was rejected by the respondent No.1.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that pursuant to purchasing the site vide registered Sale Deed dated 07.03.1995, the petitioner filed an application seeking issuance of the Khatha Certificate in Form No.3. The said application was rejected by respondent No.1 by issuing the impugned endorsement on the ground that respondent No.2 / police authority have raised objection with regard to issuance of the khatha. Aggrieved by the -3- WP No. 147891 of 2020 same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. M.S. Rajeshwari and others Vs. The Joint Commissioner and another - W.P.No.8494/2016 (D.D.02.09.2022).
5. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.1 submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In Rajeshwari's case supra, this Court held as under:
"The petitioners claim that they have acquired right, title and interest over the schedule property by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 9.6.2010. In pursuance of the gift deed dated 9.6.2010, the petitioners submitted an application with the respondents - BBMP to register the katha in their favour inrespect of the schedule property as specified under Section 114(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'Act'). The said application came to be rejected stating that the objection has been submitted by Sri M R Sathyanarayana and only after settling the dispute with the said person, the application for registering the katha in their favour may be submitted. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.-4- WP No. 147891 of 2020
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioners claim to have acquired right, title and interest over the schedule property by virtue of the registeredgift deed. Section 114(3) of the Act specifies that whenever such transfer comes to the knowledge of the Commissioner or authorized officer through such notice, the name of the transferee shall be entered in the property tax register. In the present case, in the absence of any order of restraint passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court, the respondent - BBMP was under an obligation to register the katha in favour of the petitioners as specified under sub-section 3 of Section 114 of the Act. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondents-BBMP rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners is contrary to Section 114(3) of the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsement dated 13.10.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
iii) The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the applications dated 4.7.2015 and 8.9.2015 submitted to register the katha in favour of the petitioners in respect of the schedule property as specified under Section 114(3) of the Act or 149 of the BBMP Act. The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
-5-WP No. 147891 of 2020
7. As held by this Court in the aforesaid decision, application filed by a person seeking registration of khatha pursuant to the registration of Sale Deed cannot be rejected merely on the ground that some other persons have file objections to the same.
8. In this context, it is relevant to a perusal of Section 111 to 113 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 will clearly indicate that upon request being made by a holder of the registered Sale Deed to transfer the khatha into his name by issuing a notice in this regard, it is incumbent upon the respondent No.1 and to register the khatha in the name of the purchaser / transferee respondent No.1 to register the khatha in the name of the purchaser / transferee under the registered deed of transfer / sale and issue Khatha Certificate in Form No.3 in favour of the said purchaser / transferee. The said principles which is also contained in Section 114 (3) of the KMC Act has been relied upon by this Court in its order in Rajeshwari's case supra, which is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case also. -6- WP No. 147891 of 2020
9. Under these circumstances, in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the said property vide registered Sale Deed dated 07.03.1995, it is the bounded duty of respondent No.1 to register the khatha in the name of the petitioner and issue Khatha Certificate in Form No.3 in favour of the petitioner and failure to do so on the part of the respondent No.1 by issuing the impugned endorsement has occasioned failure of justice and consequently, the impugned endorsement deserves to be set aside and necessary directions be issued to respondent No.1 in this regard.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned endorsement at Annexure - G dated 20.09.2019 issued by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.
(iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to register the khatha in respect of the subject property in the name of the petitioner and issue a Khatha Certificate in Form No.3 in favour of the -7- WP No. 147891 of 2020 petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.2
- Police authorities to take recourse to such remedies as available in law.
SD JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28