Disposed

Smt Kanthamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2024WP/11736/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to issue e-Katha for a property. Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty for petitioner to file supporting documents (Sale Certificate, Encumbrance Certificate, Tax Paid Receipts) with the Municipal Council within four weeks, requiring the Council to consider the application and communicate its decision within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file documents for consideration of e-Katha application; Respondent to communicate decision within 4 months.

Smt Kanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47056 WP No. 11736 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 11736 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/OF KOTE KALAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,

¶14

BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

¶17

CHANNAPATTANA,

¶18

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA,

¶20

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-3; SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:47056 WP No. 11736 of 2024

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 TO ISSUE E-KHATHA BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.01.23, 05.01.24 AND 16.01.24, IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY SITE BEARING NO. B-70, MUNICIPAL KHATHA NO. 2094, SITUATED AT MANGALAVAARA PETE, WARD NO. 31, IDSMT LAYOUT, (CMC LAYOUT), CHANNAPATTANA TOWN, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-D,E AND F RESPECTIVELY.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner asserts ownership of the site bearing No.B-70, Municipal Katha No.2094, Mangalavaara Pete, Ward No.31, IDSMT Layout, Channapattana Town, Ramanagara District [ the Subject Property ]. The petitioner has sought for directions to the second respondent – the City Municipal Council, Channapattana - to consider her

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:47056 WP No. 11736 of 2024

¶32

representations as per Annexures-D, E and F and issue e-Katha for the Subject Property.

¶33

Sri R P Somashekhariah, the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Orders of this Court both dated 21.08.2023 respectively in the writ petitions in W.P. No.22005/2012 and W.P. No.31048/2019, submits that this Court must similarly dispose of the petition directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and issue e-Katha for the subject property.

¶35

Sri A V Gangadharappa, the learned

¶36

counsel for the second respondent, submits indeed he has stated before this Court in the aforesaid writ

¶37

proceedings that the question relating to identification of the sites in the subject layout and the proceedings before the Lokayukta have been sorted out but if the petitioner's request for e-Katha of the Subject Property must be considered, the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:47056 WP No. 11736 of 2024

¶40

petitioner will have to produce the requisite documents. In rejoinder, Sri R P Somashekharaiah submits that (i) a copy of the Sale Certificate, (ii) Encumbrance Certificate, and (iii) copies of the Tax Paid Receipts in Form No.3 have been furnished as mentioned in the annexures, and in response, Sri A V Gangadharappa submits that he cannot categorically acknowledge that these documents have been furnished. The disposal of the petition is considered in the light of the afore.

¶41

It is obvious that the second respondent is willing to consider the petitioner’s representations if the requisite documents are produced. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner must furnish additional copies of the Sale Certificate, Encumbrance Certificate and Tax Paid Receipts, and that if the petitioner files these documents within a timeframe, the second respondent must consider

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:47056 WP No. 11736 of 2024

¶44

these documents and inform the outcome of the consideration to the petitioner. Hence, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

[a] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file with the second respondent [i] a certified copy of this order , [ii] a copy of the Sale Certificate, [iii] the latest Encumbrance Certificate and [iv] a set of the copies of the Tax Paid Receipts. The petitioner will be at liberty to file these documents with the second respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶47

[b] The second respondent, if the petitioner files the documents as aforesaid, shall consider the same and communicate its decision to the petitioner within an outer

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:47056 WP No. 11736 of 2024

¶50

limit of four [4] months from the date of receipt of the application/ documents.

¶51

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶52

AN/-

Smt Kanthamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kanthamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vishnu Priya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thrilok Chandar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Jagadish J Sule Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Gangadharaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nanda Kumar N.R. Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Prasanna Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka