Disposed

Sri John David v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024WP/15184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought revenue entries for a disputed property but were refused by the Panchayat due to lack of Local Planning Authority approval. The Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty for the petitioners to apply to the Bangalore Development Authority for permission to carve out the property for partition, directing the authority to respond within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty reserved to apply to the fourth respondent (Bangalore Development Authority) for permission to carve out 3,439.87 Sq. Ft. of the property for partition; authority directed t

Sri John David Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48552 WP No. 15184 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15184 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI JOHN DAVID S/O LATE JOHNSON AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶6

SMT.SOMIA DAVID D/O JOHN DAVID, W/O BALARAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶7

SRI.SABDEEP DAVID S/O JOHN DAVID, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶8

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF SY NO.16/P-25, KANNUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK- 562149.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAY A M.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:48552 WP No. 15184 of 2024

¶16

RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, 3^RD FLOOR,M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶18

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KANNUR VILLAGE PANCHAYATH BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-562 149.

¶19

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T CHOWDAIAH RAOD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU -560020.

¶20

THE TOWN PLANNER MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560020.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT.SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 5.2.24 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:48552 WP No. 15184 of 2024

¶26

DIRECT THE R3 TO ISSUE THE KHATHA IN FORM-11A IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have challenged the third respondent's Endorsement dated 05.02.2024 [ Annexure-A ]. The third respondent has issued this Endorsement informing the petitioners that their request for revenue entries in Form 11A for the property measuring 13.333 guntas [14,516.37 Sq. Ft.] in Survey No.16/P-25, Village Panchayat E-Katha No.150200400200221581] of Kannur Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [ the Subject Property ] cannot be considered because of the Government Circular dated 04.01.2013.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:48552 WP No. 15184 of 2024

¶33

The petitioners assert title to the subject property relying upon the following circumstances.

¶34

2.1 The petitioners' mother, Smt. Nalini David has commenced a suit for partition in O.S. No.2929/2005 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. This suit is decreed on 06.12.2008 declaring a share in the subject property in favor of Smt. Nalini David, who has filed final decree proceedings in FDP No.9/2009.

¶35

2.2 The petitioners are brought on record in this final decree proceedings in FDP No.9/2009 because Smt. Nalini David has died. The civil Court has directed drawing up of final decree in favor of the petitioners for the subject property, and with such decree being drawn, it is registered on 05.12.2017.

¶36

2.3 The undisputed owner, Smt.

¶37

Susheelamma [Smt. Nalini David's mother] has got the larger extent of the land in Survey No.16/P-25 of

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:48552 WP No. 15184 of 2024

¶40

Kannur Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, and the purchaser claiming under Smt. Susheelamma has obtained revenue entries for the larger land, including the subject property, constraining the petitioners to call such revenue entries in an appeal which is allowed on 10.09.2020.

¶41

2.4 It is thereafter the petitioners are given the benefit of revenue entries for the subject property in Form 11A. The petitioners propose to partition the subject property so that an extent measuring 3,439.87 Sq. Ft. on the Southern side of the subject property is allotted to the second petitioner, and when a Partition Deed is drawn accordingly and presented for registration, the concerned Office of the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the document because the petitioners are not issued with revenue entries in Form 11A.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:48552 WP No. 15184 of 2024

¶44

Sri Vijay A.M., the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the larger land in Sy. No. 16/P-25 is converted from agricultural to nonagricultural purposes and that the petitioners' title to the subject property cannot be disputed in the light of the different proceedings as stated above, and therefore, the third respondent could not have issued the impugned Endorsement refusing revenue entries in Form 11A. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioners propose to carve out a portion in the Southern side of the subject property to be allotted to the second petitioner and this portion will have its own access and there will be no bifurcation otherwise.

¶45

Smt. Spoorthi V, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first and the second respondents, and Sri K. Krishna, the learned Counsel for the fourth and the fifth respondents [the Local Planning Authority] are heard for final disposal of the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:48552 WP No. 15184 of 2024

¶48

petition in the light of the circumstances relied upon by the petitioners and the canvass on their behalf by Sri Vijay A.M. The third respondent, though served has remained absent.

¶49

It remains indisputable that any division [ or bifurcation ] of a land, after it is diverted from agricultural to residential purposes must be approved by the Local Planning Authority [ in this case the fourth respondent ] given the provisions of Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 [for short, ' the KTCP Act' ]. In fact, it remains indisputable that even if a property is to be developed, without subdivision, as a 'Single Plot’, the Local Planning Authority must grant approval. Therefore, this Court cannot take exception with the impugned Endorsement. The revenue entries in Form 11B is issued by the concerned Panchayat only as an interim measure, and this is done in the petitioners' case.

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48552 WP No. 15184 of 2024

¶51

6. If no exception can be taken with the

¶52

impugned Endorsement, this Court is also of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to apply with the fourth respondent for approval to carve out separately an extent of 3,439.87 Sq. Ft. in the subject property measuring 13.333 guntas [14,516.37 Sq. Ft] directing the fourth respondent to consider the same and communicate its decision to the petitioners in a time-bound manner. Hence the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

[A] The petition is disposed of reserving

¶55

liberty to the petitioners to apply with the fourth respondent - Bangalore Development Authority - under Section 17 of the KTCP Act for permission to bifurcate/to carve out separately an extent of 3,439.87 Sq. Ft, in the subject

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:48552 WP No. 15184 of 2024

¶58

property measuring 13.333 guntas

¶59

[14,516.37 Sq. Ft].

¶60

[B] The petitioners will be at liberty to file

¶61

this application within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified

¶62

copy of this order. The fourth respondent is directed to consider and communicate its decision on the application within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶63

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶64

RB*

Sri John David v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri John David 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

M/S. Samriddhi Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Bbmp

M.M.Anandaram Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Varadaraju Vs Executive Officer

Manjunath Babu K Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Kekoo S Sethna Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike