Allowed

Shruthi B v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/12828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a municipal endorsement refusing e-Khata on the ground that her site lay in an unauthorized layout under a Government Circular dated 22.03.2017. Relying on earlier writ petitions where similar endorsements were quashed for pre-Circular construction, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the endorsement, and directed issuance of e-Khata.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-D) quashed; second respondent directed to issue e-Khata for the subject property to the petitioner on or before 31.03.2025, subject to further orders by the Stat

Shruthi B Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45708 WP No. 12828 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12828 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRUTHI B D/O BASAVARAJAPPA T R AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, R/O NO. 24/ 5^TH BLOCK, JB KAVAL POLICE QWUARTERS, KRISHNANANDA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560096.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR G M.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

HOLALKERE TOWN MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER, HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:45708 WP No. 12828 of 2024

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.02.2024, BEARING NO. PU.HO.KHA.SHA.V.C.R 279/2023-24, ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D; DIRECTING THE R2 TO ISSUE NECESSARY E-KHATHA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner asserts ownership of the property bearing No.1900/F48 [Site No.48], Basava Layout, G M Extension, within the limits of Holalkere Town Municipality [ Subject Site ]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 15.02.2024 issued by the second respondent, and the second respondent in issuing this impugned Endorsement has informed the petitioner that because the subject site is part of an unauthorized Layout, the revenue entries [Khata] will

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:45708 WP No. 12828 of 2024

¶23

have to be cancelled in view of the Government Circular dated 22.03.2017.

¶24

Sri Chandrashekar G.M., the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.14253/2022 and Writ Petition No.28310/2023, which are disposed of respectively on 03.03.2024 and 23.04.2024, submits that this petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, and that this Court has quashed similar Endorsement directing the second respondent to issue e-Khata. The learned Counsel canvasses that the essential premise for this Court's order in the writ petitions as aforesaid is that the constructions in the corresponding properties are much prior to 22.03.2017 [the date of the subject Circular] and that this Circular cannot be made retrospectively applicable.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:45708 WP No. 12828 of 2024

¶27

The petitioner to buttress her case

¶28

that the construction in her property is also prior to

¶29

the Circular dated 22.03.2017, relies upon the terms of the sale deed dated 19.04.2018 wherein it is stated that the sale deed is executed conveying the property comprising ground and first floor constructed six years back. Further, the petitioner has also filed an affidavit as is permitted by this Court.

¶30

Sri B.K. Manjunath, the learned counsel for the second respondent, without disputing these essential averments, submits that the present case is distinct from the aforesaid cases because the petitioner has failed to produce a copy of the sanctioned plan for the built-up area. The assertion that the petitioner cannot be issued with the Khata [or E-Katha] for want of sanctioned plan

¶31

is extraneous when it is shown that similar

¶32

Endorsements are quashed and that

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:45708 WP No. 12828 of 2024

¶35

the construction is prior to the Circular dated 22.03.2017. Therefore, the Endorsement [ Annexure-

¶36

D ] must yield and hence the following

¶37

ORDER

¶38

[A] The petition is allowed.

¶39

[B] The second respondent's endorsement dated 15.02.2024 [ Annexure-D ] is quashed directing

¶40

the second respondent to issue e-Khata for the subject property in favour of the petitioner on or before 31.03.2025 and this

¶41

issuance/restoration would be subject to further orders by the State Government.

¶42

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶43

Shruthi B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shruthi B 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shandrila Naidu Vs the Commissioner

Mr. H. J. Siwani Vs the Commissioner

Dr Sreeranga P C Vs the Commissioner

Mr. K. Girish Kumar Naidu Vs the Chief Commissioner of Bbmp

Mr Hugh Gerald Mascarenhas Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Lokesha Naik T Vs State of Karnataka