Disposed

Sri Y Dyavappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024WP/19611/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought katha/mutation of revenue entries for four parcels of land in Bangalore relying on a Lok Adalat award and a partition deed. The court held he was not entitled to 'A' Register entries, and directed the Assistant Revenue Officer to approve 'B' Register entries for one property, with liberty to download other entries once technical glitches were resolved.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Y Dyavappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51748 WP No. 19611 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19611 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI Y DYAVAPPA S/O LATE YERRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/AT NO. 28/510 G.M.PALYA MAIN ROAD, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 560075.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ARVIND N.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶13

THE REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP ADDRESS. C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560093.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BBMP ADDRESS. C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560093.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R1;

¶17

SMT. SAMIDHA PRADEED WAINGANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:51748 WP No. 19611 of 2024

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.05.2024 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT FOR INTRODUCTION OF THIS NAME IN THE KATHA VIDE ANNEXURE-C; DIRECT TO THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.05.2024 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT FOR INTRODUCTION OF HIS NAME IN THE KATHA VIDE ANNEXURE-C1; DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.05.2024 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT FOR INTRODUCTION OF HIS NAME IN THE KATHA VIDE ANNEXURE-C2; DIRECT TO THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.06.2024 WHEREIN PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT FOR ISSUANCE OF A KATHA FOR THE SUBJECT LAND VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner asserts ownership of four parcels of lands but with three municipal numbers. The details of the municipal numbers/PID numbers and

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51748 WP No. 19611 of 2024

¶25

the corresponding representations appended to this

¶26

writ petition are as follows:-

¶27

Municipal Nos.	Annexures	PID Nos.
346/1	Annexure-C
75/5/1	Annexure-C1
347/1	Annexure-C2	83-147-9A
	Annexure-D	83-147-10

¶28

The petitioner has filed representations [ Annexures - C, C1, C2 and D ] for mutation of the revenue entries for these properties relying upon the award in the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.27297/2012 and subsequent Partition Deed dated 11.04.2019.

¶29

Ms. Samidha Pradeep Waigenkar, the learned counsel for the second and third respondents [ Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and its officer ], relying upon the copies of the Endorsements issued by the office of the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer, submits that this authority has approved

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:51748 WP No. 19611 of 2024

¶32

revenue entries for the first two properties in ‘ B’ Register instead of entries in ‘A’ Register because these properties are not part of a converted land or an approved layout. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has already been issued with Holder Katha for the third property.

¶33

When queried, Ms. Samidha Pradeep Waigenkar submits that the BBMP no longer follows the practice of issuing a Holder Katha as entries in the Holder Katha would be akin to the entries in ‘B’ Registers . As regards issuing of requisite certificates/extracts for the first two properties in favour of the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that because of a technical glitch the petitioner is not able to download the details of the entries in ‘B’ Register, but if some reasonable time is granted, the BBMP will take necessary measures to ensure that the petitioner can download these entries.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:51748 WP No. 19611 of 2024

¶36

These submissions are considered in the

¶37

light of the other submissions that the BBMP has stopped the practice of issuing Holder Katha and that the subject properties are not part of an approved layout or a converted land. Sri Aravind N., the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent, are heard in the light of the afore. Indisputably, the petitioner will not be entitled for entries in 'A' Register.

¶38

If the concerned from the BBMP has already approved the revenue entries in ‘ B’ Register for the first two properties and if the BBMP requires further time to enable the petitioner to download these entries resolving the glitch that could be, the BBMP must have reasonable time in that regard. As regards the revenue entries for the third property, this Court must direct the Assistant Revenue Officer to issue appropriate orders for approval of the entries

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:51748 WP No. 19611 of 2024

¶41

in ‘B’ Register for this property as well, so that the petitioner can have the benefit of such entries in terms of the updated system that is followed by the BBMP. Hence, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

[A] The petition stands disposed of directing the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer [ the second respondent ] to ensure that there are necessary approvals for entering the petitioner’s name in the ‘ B’ Register for the third property.

¶44

[B] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order directing the second respondent to ensure that such approval is granted within a period of eight [8] weeks therefrom.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:51748 WP No. 19611 of 2024

¶47

[C] The petitioner will be at liberty to download the details of the entries for all the three properties as and when the technical glitches are resolved by the concerned from the BBMP.

¶48

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶49

SA ct:sr

Sri Y Dyavappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Y Dyavappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhoomanand Manay Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rudramma Vs the Joint Commisisoner

Smt. Puttamma Vs the Commissioner

Sarojamma Vs the Director

Mr. Nithyanandan J Vs Commissioner