Allowed

K Srinivas v. Regional Commissioner and Revision Authority

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/19076/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order dismissing his revision petition for delay. The khata issued by the Municipal Council was cancelled, and on the Deputy Commissioner's instruction the petitioner filed a delayed revision petition before the Regional Commissioner, who rejected the condonation application. The High Court held sufficient cause was shown, allowed the writ petition, set aside the i

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.06.2024 (Annexure-L) set aside; I.A. for condonation of delay allowed; revision petition remanded for consideration on merits.

K Srinivas Vs Regional Commissioner and Revision… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35510 WP No. 19076 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO.19076 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K SRINIVAS, S/O M KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.3, WARD NO.255, M G ROAD, CHICKKABALLAPUR-562 101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI JAI PRAKASH REDDY M, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND REVISION AUTHORITY, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101.

¶16

PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 [V/C]; SRI YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:35510 WP No. 19076 of 2024

¶22

10.06.2024 IN NO. MUN/RP24/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY THE R-1 AND GRANT RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE RP NO. MUN/RP24/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 10.06.2024 vide Annexure-L passed by respondent No.1.

¶27

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶28

The petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.263/2, measuring 1-14 acres situated at Musturu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and District, has applied for conversion of agricultural land into residential land. Respondent No.3 has passed an order for converting the land, for residential purpose and the layout plan was approved by respondent No.4. The petitioner formed the

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35510 WP No. 19076 of 2024

¶30

sites and sold the sites in favour of intending purchasers and has also executed the Release Deed in favour of the Government in respect of civic amenity sites and park area.

¶31

The said sites are situated within the limits of Thippenahalli Grama Panchayath. It is contended that the petitioner, by paying Rs.5,03,650/- as a Government fee, got the khata from respondent No.2. In the year 2023, when the petitioner made an attempt to get e-khata, came to know that the respondent No.2 has no authority to issue khata. Hence, the 2^nd respondent cancelled the khata and addressed a communication to respondent No.3, seeking for guidance.

¶32

The respondent No.3 on instruction of respondent No.2, directed the petitioner to file a revision petition before the respondent No.1. Pursuant to the instruction of respondent No.3, petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 along with an application for condonation of delay. The respondent No.1 dismissed the application

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:35510 WP No. 19076 of 2024

¶35

for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the

¶36

revision petition and hence, this writ petition is filed.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶38

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner was appearing in the khata extract and paid the Government fee. In the year 2023, the petitioner made an attempt to get the khata from respondent No.2, but, the respondent No.2 cancelled the khata without issuing any notice to the petitioner and addressed a communication to respondent No.3 seeking guidance. The respondent No.3 issued a direction to the petitioner, to file a revision petition before respondent no.1. On the instruction of respondent No.3, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the respondent No.1. Thus, delay has been caused in filing revision petition. The petitioner has shown the sufficient cause for not preferring the revision petition within a time. The respondent No.1 without considering the sufficient

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35510 WP No. 19076 of 2024

¶41

cause shown in the application, rejected the application and consequently dismissed the revision petition. He submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.1 is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order and prays to dismissal of the writ petition.

¶43

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

It is a case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.263/2, measuring 01 acre 14 guntas situated at Musturu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and District. The petitioner got converted the said land into non-agricultural for residential purpose. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before respondent no.4 for approval of the layout plan, the respondent No.4

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35510 WP No. 19076 of 2024

¶46

approved the layout plan. The petitioner had surrendered

¶47

civic amenity sites and park area in favour of the concerned authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.2 to transfer the khata in

¶48

the name of petitioner, by paying the necessary fee. The respondent No.2 has sought instruction from the respondent No.3. The 3^rd respondent in-turn, instructed the respondent No.2 to direct the petitioner to prefer a revision petition before respondent No.1. Pursuant to the said instructions, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the respondent No.1 along with an application for condonation of delay. The respondent No.1 without considering the sufficient cause shown in the application, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has shown a sufficient cause for not preferring the revision petition within time. Thus, respondent No.1 has committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and the said order passed by the respondent No.1 is arbitrary and erroneous.

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35510 WP No. 19076 of 2024

¶50

Hence in view of the above discussion, the writ

¶51

petition is allowed .

¶52

Impugned order bearing No.MUN/RP/24/2024 dated 10.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-L is set-aside.

¶53

Accordingly, I.A. for condonation of delay is allowed.

¶54

The respondent No.1 is directed to consider the revision petition on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶55

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶56

GRD

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

K Srinivas v. Regional Commissioner and Revision Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Srinivas v. Regional Commissioner and Revision Authority

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

Sri. Y Shanmuga, Vs Kumari Poornima K

Sri. Raghu Nandan. N Vs the State of Karnataka

Hmt Limited Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Dev Publicity Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt Gulabi Vs Sri Loku Shetty

Sri Surendra Vs State of Karnataka