Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the residential sites bearing Nos.40 & 41, measuring 60 ft x 40ft (totally measuring 2400 sq. ft), bearing Katha Nos.378/26 and 377/25 formed out of Sy.No.10/2, situated at Pillagana Halli, Pavamana Residency, Utharahalli Hoblic, Bangalore South Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 10.06.2004.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that, by Notification dated 05.07.2003, the lands bearing Sy.Nos.10/4, 10/5 and 10/6 were acquired for the project of Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project ('BMIC Project' for short) and the petitioner's sites formed out of land in Sy.No.10/2 has not been acquired for the said project. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.03.2010, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has issued 'A' Katha in respect of Site/Plot No.16, Katha No.55/117/16 formed out of adjacent Sy.No.10/3, which was also similarly not acquired under the said acquisition notifications. On 31.07.2015, respondent No.2 issued a letter to the respondent No.3 directing him to take action to cancel the kathas issued to buildings and sites that are within the jurisdiction of BMICAPA and that in future, no katha shall be issued to the unauthorized properties in the said BMICAPA area. On 19.05.2017, petitioner submitted an application along with all the necessary documents to the respondent No.3 requesting him to grant 'A' katha in respect of his aforementioned residential sites.

4. It is further contended that the petitioner has paid the property tax for the year 2017-18 for the aforementioned sites. It is further contended that on 01.08.2017, the petitioner submitted a representation stating that his residential sites formed out of Sy.No.10/2 do not come under the jurisdiction of BMICAPA since the same has not been acquired for BMIC Project. It is also contended that the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 02.11.2017 to the respondents reiterating the earlier request made to them. Inspite of the representation and legal notice issued by the petitioner to the respondents, they have not considered the same nor granted 'A' katha in respect of properties in question. Therefore, he is before this Court for the relief sought for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has purchased the properties in question under a registered sale deed dated 10.06.2004 and admittedly, the said properties were not acquired for BMIC Project. He further submits that inspite of the representation and legal notice issued to the respondents, even after lapse of eight months, the respondents have not taken any action to grant 'A' Katha in respect of properties in question. He submits that because of inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is driven before this Court for the relief sought for.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the representation of the petitioner dated 01.08.2017 vide Annexure-D for grant of 'A' katha in respect of residential sites will be considered within reasonable period of two months, if not already considered, in accordance with law.

8. The said submission is placed on record.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he has purchased two residential sites under a registered sale deed dated 10.06.2004. The BBMP had also issued 'A' katha in respect of adjoining property of the petitioner. It is the categorical statement of the petitioner that his residential properties have not been acquired for BMIC Project. The representation dated 01.08.2017 submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents even after lapse of eight months. Therefore, there is no impediment for the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of 'A' katha if the same is in accordance with law.