Allowed

Sighbathulla Shariff v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022WP/22299/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by an individual who purchased a property and sought registration in the municipal tax records. The writ court quashed the municipal officer's endorsement rejecting the application based on unspecified public objections and directed the authority to reconsider the case after a hearing within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned endorsement dated 18.09.2015 is quashed; the second respondent is directed to reconsider the application after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Sighbathulla Shariff Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.22299/2016 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SIGHBATHULLA SHARIFF S/O.M.A.WAHAB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.KOTTE, KOLAR-TOWN, KOLAR-TALUK, KOLAR - 563 132

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH S. HOSMATH, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

CHIEF OFFICER

¶14

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MALUR TALUK, MALUR - 563 132

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI.RAMESH KUMAR R.V., ADV. FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEX-G DATED

¶18

¶19

18.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF OFFICER, MALURMUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing old No.5853-5498-41 (new Municipal Khata No.5854-5499) at Patel Layout, Malur Taluk measuring to an extent of 26.5ft. X 40 ft. by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 10.03.2014. The petitioner submitted an application with the second respondent to register the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject property in the property tax register maintained by the second respondent. The said application is rejected stating that the objections have been received by the public at large. Hence this petition.

¶23

Learned counsel petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for registration of his name in the property tax register maintained by the second

¶24

¶25

respondent in pursuance of the registered sale deed executed in his favour. However, the second respondent without assigning any valid reason has rejected the application stating that objections has been received by the public at large. Hence, he submits that the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent is not sustainable.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the subject site is earmarked as CA site and as such the petitioner is not entitled for registration of Khata in his favour and the impugned endorsement issued rejecting the application of the petitioner is in accordance with law and same does not warrant interference.

¶27

I have examined the submissions made by

¶28

the learned counsels for the parties.

¶29

A perusal of the registered sale deed dated 10.03.2014 indicates that the subject property has

¶30

¶31

been purchased by the petitioner from Chennamma to whom the said site is alleged to have been allotted by virtue of a resolution dated 30.12.1994 passed by the second respondent. Hence, it was incumbent on the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for registering Khata in his favour in pursuance of the registered sale deed. However, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that objections have been received from the public at large. In the absence of any valid reason for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Writ petition is allowed.

¶34

The impugned endorsement dated 18.09.2015 issued by the second respondent at Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

¶35

¶36

The second respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for registering the Khata in his favour in respect of the subject property in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶37

The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶38

All contentions are kept open.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

RKA

Sighbathulla Shariff v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sighbathulla Shariff v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Santosh Kumar Vs the Zonal Joint Commissioner (South)

The Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Hameedulla Hassan Vs Sri Bheemaiah

Sri N Rajendra Vs the Chief Secretary

R Mayanna Vs the State of Karnataka

T M Rajeshwari Pandit Vs State of Karnataka