Swapnaja vs The Regional Commissioner And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5980 Kant

                                1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER-2021
                         PRESENT
         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
                           AND
 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

        WRIT APPEAL No.200065/2019 (LB, RES)
BETWEEN:

Swapnaja W/o Sujitkumar Patil,
Aged about: 33 Years, Occ: Household,
R/o H.No.10-2/84, S.B.College Road,
Sangameshwar Nagar, Kalaburagi.
                                           ...Appellant
(By Sri. Vinayak Apte, Advocate)
AND:

1.     The Regional Commissioner,
       Mini Vidhan Soudha,
       Kalaburagi-585102.
2.     The Deputy Commissioner,
       Mini Vidhan Soudha,
       Kalaburagi-585102.
3.     The Commissioner
       Corporation of City of
       Kalaburagi-585102.
5.     The Zonal Commissioner
       Zone-2, Corporation of
       City of Kalaburagi-585102.
                                        ... Respondents
(By Sri. Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, AGA for R1 & R2;
By Sri.Girish P.S., Advocate for R3 & R4)
                              2


     This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961 praying to call for the
records in W.P.No.202109/2018 (LR-RES) and set aside
the order dated 13.03.2019 of the learned Single Jude
and pleased to allow the appeal, in the interest of justice
and equity.

      This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day, R.Devdas J., delivered the following:

                         JUDGMENT

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The appellant herein being aggrieved of an

endorsement dated 26.02.2018 issued by the

Commissioner, Corporation of City of Kalaburagi, had

approached the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.202109/2018. By order dated 13.03.2019, the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

Consequently this writ appeal is filed calling in question

the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the

endorsement dated 26.02.2018.

2. It is undisputed fact that the appellant

herein purchased a residential plot bearing No.21,

curved out of Sy.No.90/1 of Brahmapur village,

measuring about 2695 sq.ft. under a registered sale

deed dated 02.02.2018. Thereafter, the appellant

herein filed an application giving notice of transfer, in

terms of Section 112 of the Karnataka Municipal

Corporation Act 1964. However, the Commissioner

issued the impugned endorsement dated 26.02.2018

calling upon the appellant to produce a copy of the

approved layout plan, sanctioned by the Gulbarga

Development Authority / Town Planning Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-

Corporation brings to our notice two Circulars issued by

the State Government namely Circular dated

22.03.2017 and 05.01.2018. It is the contention of the

learned counsel that in terms of the Government order

dated 22.03.2017 the local bodies were directed not to

register khata in respect of plots formed without

compliance of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and

Country Planning Act, 1961 which would provide that

no person shall form any layout, without the sanction of

the planning authority. The Circular dated 05.11.2018

is a reiteration of the earlier Circular dated 22.03.2017,

however in the subsequent Circular directions are also

issued to the Corporations of various cities falling under

the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant, the learned counsel for the Gulbarga City

Corporation and learned Additional Government

Advocate, we find that invocation of the two circulars

was inapt in the present case. It is required to be

noticed that in the Circular dated 22.03.2017 it is

specifically stated that in cases were the layouts were

developed prior to 19.10.2013, in terms of the

Government order dated 28.05.2014 at reference No.4,

guidelines are given for the manner in which

regularization could be made in respect of sites formed

in such layout. In the present case, we find that

Sy.No.90/1 situated at Brahmapur village was

converted from agricultural to non agricultural

residential purpose, under Section 95(2) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, by the Deputy

Commissioner, Gulbarga, by order dated 01.11.1991.

Thereafter, the than Mandal Panchayat, Nandikur

approved the layout plan. Thereafter, the landlord

developed the layout in terms of the plan sanctioned by

the Mandal Panchayat and sold site No.21 in favour of

one Smt. Sangeeta, under a registered sale deed dated

07.01.1993. Smt. Sangeeta sold the property in favour

of Smt.Savita, under a registered sale deed dated

29.05.2007. The respondent-Corporation collected

development charges of Rs.1,14,412/- along with other

levies and collected a sum of Rs.1,16,468/- and issued

the receipt for having collected the development charges

on 11.01.2016 and registered the khata in favour of

Smt. Savita. A separate property identification number

PID 121836 was registered in respect of site No.21, in

favour of Smt. Savita. From then on the Corporation

has been collecting property tax in respect of the

property in question. The appellant herein purchased

the property from Smt. Savita under a registered sale

deed dated 02.02.2018, following which she made an

application for transfer of katha in her name and

furnished the notice in terms of Section 114 of the

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 (wrongly

mentioned as under Section 112 of Karnataka

Municipalities Act).

5. In the considered opinion of this court, the

impugned endorsement dated 26.02.2018 calling upon

the appellant to produce a copy of the approved layout

plan, cannot be sustained. On going through the two

Circulars dated 22.03.2017 and 05.01.2018, this court

finds that these two Circulars were issued by the State

Government to curb the practice of development of

layouts without the approval of the planning authority,

under the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country

Planning Act, 1961. However, we also have noticed that

in the said Circular itself there is mention of the

previous circular and the guidelines for regularizing

such unauthorized plots. The appellant herein is not

seeking regularization of the plot. On the other hand, it

is a simple application made by the appellant seeking

transfer of khata which was earlier standing in the

name of previous owner/vendor. Therefore, it is the

bounden duty of the Commissioner, City Corporation to

transfer the khata which was already registered in the

name of the previous owner.

6. This court is not oblivious of the fact that the

State Government has directed the City Corporations

under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal

Corporation Act to issue khata certificate termed as

A-khata and B-khata. A-khata, we are informed, is

issued in respect of the plots were there is compliance of

the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country

Planning Act, 1961. On the other hand B-khatas are

issued in such cases were the provisions have not been

followed. If the respondent-Corporation is following

such system, then the Corporation shall issue B-khata

in favour of the appellant. If such system is not

followed, then the respondent-Corporation shall transfer

the khata in favour of the appellant herein from its

previous owner.

7. For the above said reasons, the writ appeal

is allowed.

The impugned endorsement dated 26.02.2018, as

per Annexure-F, is hereby quashed and set aside. The

3rd respondent-Commissioner, City Corporation of

Gulbarga is hereby directed to transfer the khata of the

property in question from the name of the previous

owner in favour of the appellant herein, as expeditious

as possible at any rate within a period of four weeks

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Consequent to the disposal of the main matter, all

pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE SMP