Allowed

Sri Khaleed Pasha v. the Secretary Government

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2022WP/15007/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a khata registration application, the Karnataka High Court held that the Municipal Corporation was obligated to register the khata in the petitioner's favour to the extent of the land conveyed via the registered sale deed, violating the Municipalities Act.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned endorsement and order; directed the Respondent Corporation to register the Khata in the petitioner's favour within two months.

Sri Khaleed Pasha Vs the Secretary Government — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.15007/2015 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. KHALEED PASHA S/O. PYARIJAAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.152, 10TH CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, MANDYA - 571 401

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.R.PRAMOD, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401

¶14

THE POURAYUKATHARU CITY MUNICIPAL CORPROATION, MANDYA - 571 401

¶15

M.R.PREETHAM S/O.M.K.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶16

M.R.PRIYANKA

¶17

¶18

D/O.M.K.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶19

THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/O NO.2269, 2ND CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, MANDYA - 571 401

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.N.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI.G.M.ANAND & SMT.B.C.ASHA, ADVS. FOR R-3; SRI.SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADV. FOR R-4 & R-5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEX-F DTD.1.12.2013 PASSED BY TEH POURAUKTHARU CITY MUNICIPAL CORPROATION VIDE ANNEX-F DTD. 7.1.2014 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA IN M.A.NO.12/2013 AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the property bearing Khata No.D2/922/965/2 measuring East to West 125 ft. North to South 235 ft. situated at Mandya city having acquired the same through a registered sale deed dated 04.01.2013 executed by one Sri.M.K.Ramakrishna submitted an application with the third respondent to register the Khata in his favour

¶26

¶27

in respect of the subject property as specified under Section 113 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The said application is rejected stating that the subject property is an ancestral of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Against which the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 322 of the Act and the said revision petition was dismissed. Against which the present petition is filed.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the third respondent is under an obligation to transfer the Khata in favour of the petitioner as specified under Section 113 of the Act. Hence, he submits that the impugned endorsement issued by the third respondent as well as the order passed by the second respondent is contrary to Section 113 of the Act.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶30

Nos.4 and 5 submits that the petitioner has sought for transferring of Khata in his favour in respect of larger

¶31

¶32

extent of the property which was conveyed to the petitioner under the registered sale deed. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled for registration of the Khata to the extent what is claimed by the petitioner in the application.

¶33

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶34

A perusal of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner indicates that an extent of land measuring 125 ft. X 78.4 ft is conveyed to the petitioner through a registered sale deed and the petitioner is entitled for registration of Khata to the extent of land conveyed to him under the registered sale deed. Hence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent and the order passed by the second respondent is contrary to Section 113 of the Act and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶38

ii. The impugned endorsement dated

¶39

01.02.2013 passed by the third respondent at Annexure-E and the order dated 07.01.2014 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-F are hereby quashed.

¶40

iii. The third respondent is hereby directed to register the Khata in favour of the petitioner to the extent of land mentioned in the schedule to the registered sale deed dated 04.01.2013.

¶41

The said exercise shall be completed within a

¶42

period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

RKA

Sri Khaleed Pasha v. the Secretary Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Khaleed Pasha v. the Secretary Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Boramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M Venktesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T S Kantharaju Vs the Commissioner

M/S Indus Towers Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G Keshava Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H Premakumari Vs State of Karnataka