Karnataka High Court
Sri. P. Lakshminarayana Reddy vs The Commissioner on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30543
WP No. 11635 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.11635 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
S/O. G. P. PAPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.3, 2ND "B" MAIN ROAD,
OMBR LAYOUT,
BANASWADI POST,
BENGALURU-560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
Digitally BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
signed by R BENGALURU CITY-560 009.
DEEPA
Location: 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER
HIGH COURT BBMP BUILDING,
OF MAYO HALL EAST,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 016
3. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE BBMP,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
COX TOWN, M.M. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30543
WP No. 11635 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN NO.SA.KAM.A (C.V.R.N)/E C P
R/201/17-18/, DTD.22.2.2018 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGED ORDER SAID TO HAVE MADE
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CANCELLING HOLDER KATHA
VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22.2.2018 UNDER ANNEXURE-A.
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
This writ petition is filed challenging the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 on the basis of alleged order said to have been made by the respondent No.2 in cancelling holder khata vide its order in No.SA.KAM.A(C.V.R.N)/E.C.P.R/201/17- 18, dated 22.02.2018 under Annexure-A.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.128 measuring 16 guntas out of 6 acres 5 guntas of land which is an ancestral property. Earlier the said land was acquired by -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30543 WP No. 11635 of 2018 the BDA by East of NGF layout, Banaswadi, Kasthurinagar. It is contended that, the petitioner is having 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.128 which is allotted to him under partition and there was dispute between the petitioner and BDA. The petitioner and his brothers have filed the suits in O.S.Nos.4590/1990 to 4595/1990 and the said suits were decreed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1991, and the said decree has become final. The land of the petitioner came within the purview of respondent No.2. The petitioner compelled the respondent No.2 for change of khata in his name as the land was assessed by BBMP. The BBMP after due verification issued khata assigning the property identification No.84-9-25 and 84-9-3. As such, BBMP has issued a khatha certificate dated 20.09.2013. It is contended that, the petitioner intended to put up construction and approached respondent No.2 for grant of approval of building plan and also licence to put up construction. Respondent No.2 issued licence to the petitioner to put up construction. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents-BBMP for issuance of permission and road cutting for installation of sanitary pipes, KEB electrical pipes and the respondents have accorded permission vide letter -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30543 WP No. 11635 of 2018 dated 03.03.2015. The respondents initiated proceedings for cancellation of khatha. It is contended that respondent No.1 without issuing notice to the petitioner, has cancelled khatha that stood in the name of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner, aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuing an endorsement as per Annexure-A, no notice was issued to the petitioners and further the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 is without holding any enquiry as provided under Section 114 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. He further submits that the said endorsement issued is contrary to Section 114 of the said Act. Hence on this ground, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned endorsement and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30543 WP No. 11635 of 2018
7. It is the claim of the petitioner that, petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No.128 measuring 16 guntas out of 6 acres 5 guntas of land. Further, there was a partition effected between the petitioner and his brothers and in the said partition, the said property in question had fallen to the share of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner and his brothers filed a suit against the BDA for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 21.12.1991. Further, the petitioner submitted a representation to the BBMP to enter his name in the khatha and the BBMP after due verification, issued khatha certificate dated 20.09.2013, assigning property identification No.84-9-25 and 84-9-36. Further, the petitioner has also obtained permission and constructed a building pursuant to the sanction plan and construction permission. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and petitioner has replied to the said show-cause notice. Respondent No.3 without considering the objection filed by the petitioner, has proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement. Further, respondent No.3 has not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.3 is in -6- NC: 2024:KHC:30543 WP No. 11635 of 2018 violation of principles of natural justice. Hence on this ground alone, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside.
8. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned endorsement at Annexure- A is set aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.3 to initiate proceedings after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
SD/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS/RD