Allowed

Sunningdale Developments v. Assistant Revenue Officer

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2024WP/25230/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged an endorsement refusing a Khatha amalgamation due to lack of conversion order and betterment charge proof. Court held that since planned development was abandoned, insistence on individual plots was unjustified and quashed the endorsement, directing the respondent to consider the 'A' Khatha request subject to statutory compliances.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Endorsement dated 19.08.2024 quashed. Liberty granted to file representation for single Khatha; Respondent directed to consider same within three months subject to compliances.

Sunningdale Developments Vs Assistant Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25230 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUNNINGDALE DEVELOPMENTS BEING A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT VASWANI VICTORIA NO. 30, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALORE 560047

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. ARUN ADVANI

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MANASA M B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER HOODI SUB DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU 560048

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. DA/PR/KTR/213/2024-25 DTD 19.08.2024 VIDE ANNXA ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND TO DIRECT THE CONSOLIDATED AND AMALGAMATED KHATHA BE ISSUED AFTER COLLECTING BETERMENT CHARGES AS APPLICABLE AS PER THE REQUEST LETTER DTD 9.07.2024 VIDE ANNX-J FOR THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF 1,90,357 SQ FT (4 ACRES 14.08 GUNTAS) IN SY NO. 78/1 ,2,3,4(P) AND 79/2 OF PATTANDUR AGRAHARA VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner asserts ownership of 4 acres 14.8 guntas [1,90,357 Sq. Ft.] in Sy.Nos. 78/1 to 78/4(P) and 79/2 of Pattandur Agrahara Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [ the Subject Property ] which is within the BBMP limits in Ward No.82. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 19.08.2024 [ Annexure-A ] issued by the respondent -

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶26

the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer with the BBMP. The petitioner has sought for amalgamation of individual Khathas issued for certain portions of the subject property and the respondent has refused to issue such amalgamation opining that [a] there is no information about the subject property being diverted from agricultural to residential purposes under the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 [for short, ' the KLR Act' ], [b] the individual Khathas have been issued for certain portions as plots for a total extent measuring 1,18,592 Sq. Ft., [c] there is no Khatha for the remaining extent measuring 71,765 Sq. Ft., and [d] there are no documents to show that betterment charges have been paid.

¶27

Sri. G. L. Vishwanath, the learned Senior

¶28

counsel for the petitioner, emphasizes the following to persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶31

endorsement and to issue appropriate directions to the respondent.

¶32

2.1 The petitioner was the undisputed owner

¶33

of the subject property at the relevant time when it proposed to develop plots in the subject property, and acting upon such intention, the petitioner has also executed different sale deeds for the designated plots in the subject property giving specific boundaries and indicating the access to the roads within the subject property. The petitioner/the purchasers have also approached the BBMP for individual Khathas for the proposed plots in the subject property and at that point of time, upon verification of records and subject to payment of betterment charges for the areas earmarked as sites, individual Khathas have been issued. The purchasers have been paying taxes regularly in terms of these individual Khathas. However, the petitioner did not complete the plotted development.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶36

2.2 The petitioner, to comply with the requirements in law for the intended development, had to apply for permission with the Planning Authority under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 [for short, ' the KTCP Act' ] but has not, and for this reason and also other reasons, has revisited the decision to develop the subject property into a plotted development. The petitioner, acting upon this decision to revisit the development and with the purchasers also agreeing, has the benefit of re-conveyance of the interest conveyed under the Deed of Sale-cum-Amalgamation and Consolidation of the properties dated 17.08.2023. This Deed is executed by all those in whose favour separate sale deeds are executed.

¶37

2.3 The irrefutable legal consequence of this Deed dated 17.08.2023 is the re-transfer of the subject property in favour of the petitioner as an underdeveloped land without third party interest. The

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶40

petitioner, who proposes now to develop the property after securing all permissions as would be required in law is actually seeking for a single Khatha for the subject property and cancellation of the individual Khatha.

¶41

2.4 The KLR Act has ceased to apply to subject property as it is within the limits of the BBMP. The petitioner cannot be denied the advantage of the Khatha for the property upon cancellation of the individual Khathas on the ground that the subject property is not diverted [converted] for agricultural purposes under the KLR Act. This will be consequence of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in J.M.Narayana and Others Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, By its Commissioner Office, Bangalore and Others¹ , .

¶42

1 ILR 2005 KAR 60

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶45

Sri. Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the BBMP and its officials, arguing in support of the endorsement, submits that the petitioner cannot seek for any revenue entries unless there is approval under Section 17 of the KTCP Act and to support this contention, the learned counsel relies upon the Circular dated 03.10.2024. It is seen from this Circular that the Chief Commissioner, amongst others, has stipulated that no entries can be made in 'A' Register unless the concerned obtain approval under Section 17 of the KTCP Act and entries in 'A' Khatha cannot be issued even for a single plot unless there is a necessary approval from the BBMP. Sri. Pawan Kumar next submits that the petitioner cannot even seek for amalgamation as there is no 'A' Khatha for the areas that are marked as roads.

¶46

This Court must at the first instance observe that the petitioner is categorical that the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶49

subject sale deeds were executed and individual Khathas obtained for an intended plotted development which has been on the paper but not executed at all. This would be a crucial circumstance. This Court must next observe that the sale deeds have been executed by the petitioner in favour of third party -purchasers for the areas earmarked as plots within the subject property but they have reconveyed all their interest in the subject property in favour of the petitioner.

¶50

The Division Bench of this Court, while considering whether the provisions of the KLR Act will apply to those properties which come within the BBMP limits, has exposited thus in J.M.Narayana's case:

¶51

"As rightly pointed out by Mrs. Patil, Section 110 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, exempts the payment of property tax qua only such lands as are registered to be agricultural lands in revenue records of Government and as are actually used for cultivation of crops. Stated conversely just

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶53

because certain land included in the Corporation limits is registered or used for cultivation purposes would not imply that the said land continues to pay land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. On the contrary, Land Revenue Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the land is brought within the Corporation limits."

¶54

The petitioner, as can be discerned from

¶55

the submissions from Sri. G. L. Vishwanath is categorical, that the endeavor is to seek a single Khatha for the undivided subject property though initially an application is filed seeking for amalgamation. Further, when queried, the learned Senior Counsel is categorical that the petitioner, who has paid betterment charges, will pay every such amount that would be payable in accordance with law subject to setoff towards the betterment charges already paid.

¶56

The merits of the reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement are examined in the light of the afore. The insistence on a Conversion Order

¶57

10 -

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶59

would not be justified and that could not have been a reason to reject the request. The respondent, in next referring to the individual Khathas as they exist in the registers and the fact that individual Khathas are not issued for those areas that could have been earmarked as roads, has overlooked the salient such as that the subject property has not been developed as a plotted area, an assertion that is reinforced in the light of the earlier litigation culminating with the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(A).No.7289/2021 insofar as the adjacent property with the Apex Court observing contextually that the petitioner would also be entitled to seek approval for the subject property which is referred to as Part B property.

¶60

The significant question would be:

¶61

whether the respondent, in issuing this impugned endorsement, has insisted upon a development which is abandoned. The beneficiaries of the proposed

¶62

11 -

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶64

development have re-conveyed their title back to the petitioner and with the petitioner undertaking to comply with all the requirements as would be required for further development of the property as a single plot or otherwise, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent, in emphasizing the Khatha for individual plots and the lack of the entries for the areas that were proposed to be as roads, is underscoring this insistence. In the light of the afore, the impugned endorsement must be quashed with liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order along with a request for 'A' Khatha for the subject property and directing the respondent to consider the same, subject to compliances as could be necessary in terms of the Circular dated 03.10.2024. It is made clear that the respondent cannot insist upon the petitioner to develop the subject property as originally envisaged. Hence, the following:

¶65

12 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶67

ORDER

¶68

a. The petition is allowed quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 19.08.2024 [ Annexure-A ].

¶69

b. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a representation for a single Khatha for the subject property with the respondent along with a certified copy of this order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶70

c. The respondent, subject to other

¶71

requirements in the light of this Court's observation and the terms of the Circular dated 03.10.2024 and with due opportunity to the petitioner to tender amounts that would be required in accordance with law and to ensure all compliances, is directed to consider such request within an outer limit of three [3]

¶72

13 -

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:49062 WP No. 25230 of 2024

¶74

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy.

¶75

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶76

Sunningdale Developments v. Assistant Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunningdale Developments v. Assistant Revenue Officer

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

Sri Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S G.S. Homes and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. S. Radhakrishna Vs the Chief Commissioner

M/S Cauvery Super Speciality Hospital Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Bhaskar a, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike