Allowed

Mr Jaya Moolya v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022WP/2315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a request for a No Objection Certificate to register Khata for purchased land, arguing it violated Section 113 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act which mandates registration upon notice of transfer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 09.11.2021 quashed; Third respondent directed to register Khata within eight weeks subject to satisfaction of other legal requirements for development.

Mr Jaya Moolya Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | 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.2315/2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MR.JAYA MOOLYA S/O. SESU MOOLYA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KAMATH KODI, DELANTHABETTY VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU TLAUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 030

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶13

THE ASST. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY URVA STORE, MANGALORE - 575 006

¶14

THE KINNIGOLI TOWN PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (CHIEF OFFICER), KINNIGOLI MAIN ROAD,

¶15

¶16

KINNIGOLI POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 150

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. ANITHA, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI.S.RAJASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD. 09.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-3 PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner having purchased the converted land bearing No.17/4P13 measuring 6 cents situated at Kondemola Village, Mangaluru Taluk, D.K. District, submitted an application to register of Khata in his favour in respect of the subject land. The third respondent issued a communication dated 09.11.2021 calling upon the petitioner to furnish No objection Certificate from the Local Planning Authority for considering the application for change of Khata. Against which the present petition is filed.

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an 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.

¶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. Hence, 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 portion of the converted land through a registered sale deed

¶29

¶30

dated 11.02.2014. Section 113 of the Karnataka

¶31

Municipalities Act specifies that whenever transfer comes to the knowledge of the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Commissioner through such notice the name of the transferee shall be entered in the property tax register. Hence the impugned communication issued by the third respondent calling upon the petitioner to furnish No objection Certificate from the Local Planning Authority for registering the Khata in his favour is contrary to Section 113 of the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Writ petition is allowed.

¶34

The impugned endorsement/

¶35

communication dated 09.11.2021 issued

¶36

by the third respondent at Annexure-D is

¶37

hereby quashed.

¶38

The third respondent is hereby directed

¶39

to register the Khata in favour of the petitioner in terms of the application

¶40

¶41

09.11.2021 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-C subject to petitioner satisfying the other requirements of law.

¶42

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

¶43

It is made clear that the registration of Khata in favour of the petitioner shall not confer any right on him 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.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

RKA

Mr Jaya Moolya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jaya Moolya v. the 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

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