Allowed

Suraj Kumar Jain v. Department of Town and Country Planning

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022WP/1921/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed endorsements rejecting the petitioner's Khata registration application. Relying on Section 113, it mandated the municipality to mutate the transfer, subject to non-verification of development permissions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsements dated 04.01.2022 were quashed and the second respondent was directed to register the Khata in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks.

Suraj Kumar Jain Vs Department of Town and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.1921/2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SURAJ KUMAR JAIN S/O. SUKUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SAI PANCHAMI APARTMENT, JODURASTE, KUKKUNDUR, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, RAJATHADRI, UDUPI-576 104 BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

¶13

CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TWO ENDORSEMENTS BOTH DATED 04.01.2020 VIDE ANNX-G AND H RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner purchased a portion of the converted immovable property in Sy.No.14/4 measuring 2.50 cents, in Sy.No.507/4 measuring 4.20 cents and in Sy.No.507/3 measuring 4.50 cents through a registered sale deed dated 31.08.2012. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application with the second respondent on 30.11.2021 to register the Khata in respect of the said properties. The second respondent issued an endorsement rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner stating that the lands which were converted were sub-divided and thereafter the petitioner has purchased the portion of the land. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶22

petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an

¶23

¶24

application for registering the Khata in his favour in respect of the portion of the converted land purchased by him through a registered sale deed and the second respondent is under an obligation to register the khata in favour of the petitioner as specified under Section 113 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'Act').

¶25

Learned HCGP appearing for the first respondent submits that the sub-division of the converted land was without obtaining permission as specified under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and as such the petitioner is not entitled for registration of Khata.

¶26

I have examined the submissions made by

¶27

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The petitioner has purchased the portions of the converted lands through a registered sale deed dated 31.08.2012. Section 113 of the Act specifies

¶29

¶30

that whenever transfer comes to the knowledge of the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

¶31

through such notice, the name of the transferee shall be entered in the property tax register. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent is contrary to Section 113 of the Act and the petitioner is entitled for mutating his name in the property tax register as specified under Section 113 of

¶32

the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Writ petition is allowed.

¶35

The impugned endorsement dated 04.01.2022 issued by the second respondent at Annexures-G and H respectively are hereby quashed.

¶36

The second respondent to register the Khata in favour of the petitioner in pursuance to the representation/application dated 30.11.2021 submitted by the petitioner at Annexures-E

¶37

¶38

and F subject to petitioner satisfying other requirements of law.

¶39

The said exercise shall be completed within a

¶40

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶41

However, this order shall not confer any right on the petitioner to develop the subject properties without obtaining prior permission from the local planning authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

RKA

Suraj Kumar Jain v. Department of Town and Country Planning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar Jain v. Department of Town and Country Planning

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.K.Parijatha Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt. M.S. Rajeshwari Vs the Joint Commissioner

M/S P M J Constructions Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

K Nirmala Vs The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Saarvajanika Shree Ganeshotsava Samithi (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

K Ravishankar Vs M Krishnappa