Allowed

T N Rajegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2022WP/3161/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought a direction to respondent number 4 to transfer the katha in the assessment register in his favour regarding a property under the Ashraya Scheme, dismissing inaction claims.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to enter his name in the assessment register (katha register) within one month of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

T N Rajegowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3161 OF 2020 (LB - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI T.N.RAJEGOWDA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT THYAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563130, KOLAR DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI BHADRINATH.R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOLAR-563101, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, KOLAR TALUK-563101, KOLAR.

¶15

¶16

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ARABIKOTHANUR PANCHAYAT, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563130 KOLAR DISTRICT

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI M.NARAYANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 TO 4)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO MUTATE KATHA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has sought for a direction to

¶22

respondent No.4 to transfer the katha in respect of the schedule property to his name and alternatively, has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No.4 to consider the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by respondent No.3 and the representation filed by him on 19.07.2016 and 25.01.2017.

¶23

The petitioner claims that his father had filed

¶24

an application for allotment of a site under Ashraya Scheme. Based on such application, he was granted a site

¶25

¶26

which was evidenced by a hakku patra dated 15.06.1992. During the life time of his father, he filed an application before respondent No.4 to transfer the katha to his name. Since respondent No.4 failed to do so, he filed a representation dated 23.02.2013 before respondent No.3, who passed a resolution dated 31.07.2013 to enter the name of petitioner's father in the khatha. Based on such a resolution, respondent No.3 issued an order dated 08.08.2013 directing respondent No.4 to collect the upset price and transfer the katha in the name of the father of the petitioner within three months. It is claimed that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was deposited with respondent No.4 on 20.08.2013 by a Demand Draft. The father of the petitioner thereafter died on 16.12.2013. The petitioner having succeeded to the property filed a representation dated 20.01.2014 before respondent No.4 to transfer the katha. The respondent No.4 passed a resolution dated 20.07.2015 where it decided to transfer the katha in favour of the petitioner. However, respondent No.4 again failed to comply with the resolution passed, which

¶27

¶28

constrained the petitioner to issue a notice dated 18.09.2015. The respondent No.4 replied to the notice and acknowledged the possession of the site by the petitioner, which was shown in a sketch prepared by respondent No.4. Thereafter, since no action was initiated, the petitioner filed a fresh representation on 19.09.2016 with respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 reiterated its earlier resolution and directed respondent No.4 to transfer the katha. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation on 19.07.2016 for transfer the katha. The respondent No.4 allegedly attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner which compelled the petitioner to file O.S.No.7/2017 for perpetual injunction. The petitioner again escalated the issue by filing representation before respondent No.4 on 25.01.2017, which went unheard. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶30

that there is no impediment for respondent No.4 to transfer the property of the petitioner in question and that

¶31

¶32

respondent No.4 is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner over the issue.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted

¶34

that steps would be taken to transfer the katha in favour of the petitioner as directed by respondent No.3 within a reasonable time. Learned counsel further submits that there is a banyan tree, which is situated in the subject property. Therefore, the panchayath had resolved to utilize the banyan tree for the benefit of the public. Hence, there is a delay in effecting the katha in the name of the petitioner.

¶35

If the property in question was granted to the father of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon respondent No.4 to verify and forthwith effect the katha in the name of the father of the petitioner. The fact that the proceedings were initiated by the father of the petitioner before respondent No.3 which culminated in a resolution dated 08.08.2013 followed by another order dated 28.09.2016 is not in dispute. If that be so, the inaction on the part of

¶36

¶37

respondent No.4 in not transferring the katha to the name of the petitioner is unacceptable.

¶38

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed . The respondent No.4 is directed to forthwith enter the name of the petitioner in the assessment register (katha register) in the name of the petitioner concerning the property granted to the petitioner measuring 30 feet X 70 feet situated at Gramatana Limits of Thyavanahalli Village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

ssb

T N Rajegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T N Rajegowda 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.Suvarna N Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Indus Towers Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M. Sandhya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Chandrashekar Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Rajanna N Vs Mandur Grama Panchayath

Smt Chowdamma Vs the State of Karnataka