Karnataka High Court
Smt. Adilakshmi vs The Commissioner on 14 March, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.1530/2013 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ADILAKSHMI,
W/O.LATE SUBRAMANYAM,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT CORPORATION NEW NO.28,
(OLD NO.85),
SITE NO.79, WARD NO.38
5TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
KALYAN NAGAR,
NAGARBHAVI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 560 072.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADV.)
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BRUHAT BENGALURU
2
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP),
BANGALORE-560 072.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.12.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-L
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 15.12.2012 which is impugned at Annexure-L to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the application dated 07.12.2012 which is in continuation to the earlier application dated 30.07.1997 and register the khatha of the schedule property in the name of the petitioner.
3
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No.28, (Old No.85), Site No.79, Ward No. 38, 5th Cross, 3rd Main, Kalyan Nagar, Nagarbhavi Hobli, Bangalore. The petitioner is stated to have purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2006 from her husband late Subramanyam. Prior to such purchase, when late Subramanyam was the absolute owner of the property having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 24.08.1983 he had made an application seeking change of khatha on payment of betterment fee. Such application had been made pursuant to the notification dated 07.11.1995 issued by BMP itself in that regard. Subsequently, since there were certain private disputes with regard to the property, the petitioner could not pursue the application for change of khatha. On the dispute coming to an end in R.F.A. No. 867/2011 on 01.10.2012, the petitioner has once again pursued the application seeking change of khatha. It is at 4 that juncture, the respondents have issued the endorsement dated 15.12.2012 expressing their inability to transfer the khatha in view of the notification issued by the Government. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The issue of endorsement as made by the respondents is sought to be justified by relying upon the Government order dated 11.12.2006 at Annexure-R1 and the Circular issued by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike at Annexures-R2 and R3. It is the case of the respondents that in respect of revenue land which has not been converted for non agricultural purposes, the provision contained in Section 192 (A) of Karnataka Ordinance No.3 of 2006 in the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 2006 would make it an offence and therefore penalty has been provided and as such there is a direction by the Government that in respect of 5 unconverted properties, the khatha shall not be issued. It is therefore contended on behalf of the respondents, the khatha cannot be issued. It is also stated that, in any event it would be open for the petitioner to seek for 'B' khatha or holder khatha which would be issued by the respondents. It is therefore contended that the prayer made in the petition for grant of khatha cannot be accepted.
4. In the light of the rival contentions, though the respondents would be justified in relying upon the Government notification and issuing such endorsement in appropriate cases where the conversions have not been made in a circumstance where it is required and the property was outside the jurisdiction until the larger urban area was formed, the same yardstick cannot be applied in the instant facts. I am of the said opinion for the reason that in the case of the petitioner herein, though she has purchased the property under a sale 6 deed dated 20.01.2006 (Annexure-A), the said document would indicate that the property was originally owned by her husband to whom it had been allotted by the Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-operative Society (Annexure- B). Pursuant thereto, they were in possession of the said property and the fact that their occupation was recognized is indicated from the notice dated 27.08.1996 (Annexure-E). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has paid the betterment charge amounting to Rs.33,400/- as established from Annexure-D and the application for the first time was made by the husband of the petitioner on 30.07.1997. When these circumstances are kept in view, the fact that the petitioner was litigating with regard to the ownership of the property in a private litigation is established from the judgment dated 01.10.2012 at Annexure-J. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has once again renewed her request for issue of khatha by submitting the representation as at Annexure-K. These aspects of the matter would indicate that in the factual 7 matrix of the instant case, the notification would not be applicable inasmuch as at this juncture it cannot be contended that the site wherein the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property could still be considered as a revenue property and the respondents at this juncture cannot insist upon the conversion order for the purpose of khatha.
5. The factual aspects of the matter in the instant case is in fact similar to the factual aspects which has been considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. Muninarayana and Another v. State of Karnataka reported in 2013 (1) KCCR 634 (DB). In that view of the matter, I am fortified in my opinion by the said judgment. Therefore, the reason indicated in the endorsement dated 15.12.2012 cannot be accepted. The endorsement is accordingly quashed and a direction issued to the respondent No.2 to 8 consider the request of the petitioner for grant of khatha in accordance with law.
6. To enable the consideration, the petitioner shall now file a copy of this order along with the supporting documents with the respondent No.2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The request of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date on which the copy is furnished to the respondent No.2.
7. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*