Smt. B. P. Shruthi vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6281 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                      NC: 2023:KHC:31812-DB
                                                        WA No. 500 of 2023



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                            PRESENT

                   THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                              AND

                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

                            WRIT APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SMT. B. P. SHRUTHI,
                         W/O SRI M PARAMESH,
                         AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
                         R/A NO.12, 12TH A MAIN,
                         AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
                         NEAR VEERESH THEATER,
                         BENGALURU-560 079.

                   2.    SMT. B P SWEETHA,
                         W/O SRI VINAY KUMAR,
                         AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                         R/A NO.47, 3RD MAIN,
Digitally signed
by SHARADA               BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT,
VANI B                   BENGALURU-560 040.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                      ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
                   (BY SRI. DR. PRAJWAL K ARADHYA., ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                         DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
                         VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                         BENGALURU-560 001.
                         REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
                                  -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:31812-DB
                                               WA No. 500 of 2023



2.     THE COMMISSIONER,
       BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
       HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002.

3.     THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
       BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
       LAGGERE SUB DIVISION,
       BENGALURU-560 058.

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER         AKBAR.,      ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24/11/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON BLE COURT AND ETC.,

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

This intra-court Appeal calls in question the order

dated 24.11.2022 made by a learned Single Judge of this

Court whereby Appellants' W.P.NO.23418/2021(LB-BMP)

has been disposed off reserving liberty to them to work

out their remedies elsewhere. In the said Writ Petition,

the challenge was laid to the Endorsement dated

26.10.2021 issued by the Respondent- BBMP to the effect

that the bifurcation of katha cannot be registered in

respect of the properties comprised in two Gift Deeds

NC: 2023:KHC:31812-DB WA No. 500 of 2023

inasmuch as, the land has been registered as a single site.

Learned counsel for the Appellants argues that, his clients

having acquired title to the subject site, the learned Single

Judge erred in sustaining the BBMP Endorsement though

the same militates against their constitutional right to

property guaranteed under Article 300-A.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the 1st Respondent - State opposes the

Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned

order. He draws out attention to the Special Deputy

Commissioner's order dated 04.02.2004 made under the

provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964 wherein, Condition No.3 prescribes certain

compliance without which, the BBMP Endorsement cannot

be faltered.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing

for the Appellants and the learned AGA appearing for the

State. We have perused the Appeal papers. We are of a

considered view that the impugned order of the learned

NC: 2023:KHC:31812-DB WA No. 500 of 2023

Single Judge does not call for out interference, as rightly

contended by the learned Additional Government

Advocate. Added, the impugned order does not close all

the doors open to the Appellants. At para 5, the learned

Single Judge has kept open a door by making the following

observations:

"5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he be reserved liberty to seek appropriate orders including permission to put up construction, for compliance of condition No.3 at Annexure-F and thereafter seek for registration of khatha."

4. The vehement submission of learned counsel

appearing for the appellants that they have constitutional

guarantee of property rights under Article 300-A overlooks

that the right to ownership and enjoyment of property is

not absolute, and it is regulated by law. The Condition

No.3 in the Conversion Order of the Special Deputy

Commissioner specifically stipulates certain compliance

with the following text:

"3. F d«Ää£À°è GzÉÝò¹gÀĪÀ §qÁªÀuÉ £ÀPëÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÆÀ gÀÄ C©üªÈÀ zÀÄÝ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ¹.JA.¹. n.JA.¹. UÁæªÄÀ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÆÀ gÀÄ gÀªÀjAzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ D £ÀAvÀgÀC£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÉÆAqÀ £ÀPëÉUÉC£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁVPÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀlÄÖªÅÀ zÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj

NC: 2023:KHC:31812-DB WA No. 500 of 2023

d«Ää£À°è ¯Éà Omï ¥Áè¤UÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀPÀÆqÀzÀÄ."

The Appellants have not laid any challenge to the said

Condition, either in the Writ Petition or in this Appeal.

They have accepted the Conversion Order as it is, which

incorporates the said Condition that has been there since

two decades or so.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Appeal fails.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb,Bsv