Partly allowed

Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2022WP/3203/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of connected writ petitions challenging endorsements refusing katha transfers under the Ashraya Scheme. The court quashed the rejections on principles of natural justice and directed verification and site inspection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsements quashed; Respondents directed to verify documents, conduct spot inspection, and conclude proceedings within three months.

Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3203/2022 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.3239/2022 (LB-RES), WRIT PETITION NO.3251/2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

IN WP No.3203/2022:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISHYAMAPPA, R/AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKAJALA HOBLI, BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJU M.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT,

¶16

¶17

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560009.

¶18

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MEENUKUNTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶21

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.01.2022 IN NO.MGP NO.77/2021-22 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MEENUKUNTE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, DODDAJALA, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU DISTRICT DENYING/DECLINING/REFUSING TO TRANSFER THE KATHA OF THE SITE BEARING NO.54 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 30 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 40 FEET FORMED IN SY.NO.116 SITUATED AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶23

IN WP No.3239/2022: BETWEEN:

¶24

SMT. SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE D. KEMPANNA, R/AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKAJALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJU M.K., ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

AND:

¶27

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶28

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶29

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560063.

¶30

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MEENUKUNTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157. …RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶32

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.02.2021 IN NO.MGP NO.48/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT-THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MEENUKUNTE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, DODDAJALA, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU DISTRICT DENYING/DECLINING/REFUSING TO TRANSFER THE KATHA OF THE SITE BEARING NO.53 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 40 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 30 FEET FORMED IN SY.NO.116 SITUATED AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURED AND ETC.

¶34

¶35

IN WP No.3251/2022:

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

SMT. SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, R/AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKAJALA HOBLI, BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK-562157, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶38

…PETITIONER

¶39

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJU M.K., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶42

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶43

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560063.

¶44

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MEENUKUNTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157. …RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶46

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶47

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.MGP.47/2020-21 DATED 23.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MEENUKUNTE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, DODDAJALA, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU DISTRICT DENYING/DECLINING/REFUSING TO TRANSFER THE KATHA OF THE SITE BEARING NO.48 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 30 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 40 FEET FORMED IN SY.NO.116 SITUATED AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER VIE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶49

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the endorsements dated 29.01.2022, 24.02.2021 and 23.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 refusing to transfer the katha of site bearing Nos.54, 53 and 48 situate at Tharabanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.4 to enter their respective names in the property register concerning the aforesaid sites.

¶52

¶53

The petitioners claim that the land bearing Sy.No.116 measuring 6 acres 22 guntas situate at Tharabanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk was a grazing land which belonged to the State Government. The State Government had formed a layout of sites of various dimensions through the Taluk Development Board and had allotted 121 sites under the Ashraya Scheme in favour of people belonging to the weaker section of the society. The petitioner in W.P.No.3203/2022, the husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.3239/2022 and the father of the petitioner in W.P.No.3251/2022 were granted the sites bearing Nos.54, 53 and 48, respectively on 19.11.1991.

¶54

The petitioner in W.P.No.3203/2022 filed an application with respondent No.4 on 24.01.2022 to enter his name in the katha register. The respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 seeking clarification whether petitioner was one amongst 37 beneficiaries in the list prepared pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.15960/2008, 14971/2008. The petitioner claimed that without perusing the material

¶55

¶56

placed on record by him, the respondent No.4 issued an endorsement rejecting the application of the petitioner for transfer of katha on the ground that his name was not found in the list mentioned above. The petitioner contends that this Court in W.P.No.2203/2016 had quashed a similar endorsement and directed the respondent No.4 to effect the katha in favour of the petitioner therein. Hence, the petitioner prays that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.4 be quashed.

¶57

The petitioner in W.P.No.3239/2022 contends that after the death of her husband Sri.D.Kempanna, the site allotted to him was succeeded by her. She claimed that all her family members had no objection for the transfer of the katha in her favour. She therefore filed an application for transfer of the katha in her name which was rejected by respondent No.4 without any basis. The petitioner has therefore challenged the said endorsement.

¶58

The petitioner in W.P.No.3251/2022 claimed that she had filed a suit in O.S.No.296/2007 before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at Devanahalli for

¶59

¶60

perpetual injunction against the respondent No.4 which was decreed on 27.09.2007. She filed an application with the respondent No.4 for transfer of the katha in her favour. However, the respondent No.4 issued an endorsement dated 23.02.2021 stating that the name of the petitioner was not amongst 37 beneficiaries in the list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner claimed that a similarly placed person had challenged similar such endorsement in W.P.No.2203/2016. This Court in terms of the order dated 23.11.2016 quashed the endorsement and directed reconsideration and if the documents were genuine, to proceed in accordance with law.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not heard by the Deputy Commissioner while preparing the list and therefore, rejection of their application on the ground that their names did not appear in the list of beneficiaries prepared by the Deputy Commissioner was improper. He further submitted that the petitioners are all in possession

¶62

¶63

of the site granted to them and the respondent No.4 was bound to conduct an inspection of the site and thereafter, take appropriate decision.

¶64

The fact that the sites in question are formed in Sy.No.116 of Tharabanahalli is not in dispute. The question that remained to be considered is whether the grant of sites in favour of the petitioners was genuine. In order to ascertain this, the respondent No.4 must have visited the sites in question to ascertain whether the petitioners are in possession and thereafter forward the copies of the grant certificate to the concerned authority to verify its authenticity and thereafter, takes steps. Since the same is not done but is based on a list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, to which the petitioners were not parties, the impugned endorsements have no legs to stand and are liable to be quashed.

¶65

In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are allowed in part and the impugned endorsements dated 29.01.2022, 24.02.2021 and 23.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 in all these cases are quashed. The

¶66

¶67

respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to verify the documents of the petitioners and conduct a spot inspection of the sites in question. If the documents are genuine and valid, the respondent No.4 may enter the names of the petitioners in the katha register of the sites in question. The petitioners are directed to furnish their Saguvali Slips to the respondent No.4 in original by 04.07.2022. The respondent No.4 shall make a photocopy of the Saguvali Slips and return the original to the petitioners on the same day. The respondent No.4 may conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from 04.07.2022.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

NR/-

Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnappa 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

M/S Shakti Developers Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Sri Ramanjini, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vasanta D S Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt. Soubhagya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Saraswathi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sharadamma Vs State of Karnataka