Vishnu Tripathi Vs the Chief Commissioner

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED:23/05/2024 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. DA/PR/KTR/SAKALA-257352 AND SO ALSO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A1 DATED:23/05/2024 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. DA/PR/KRT/SAKALA-257361, BOTH ISSUED BY THE R2 AND THEREBY REFUSED TO TRANSFER/ REGISTER KHATHAS WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES BEARING SITE NO. 6, KHATHA NO. 3500/401/6, MEASURING EAST WEST 65 FEET AND NORTH-SOUTH 40 FEET AND SO ALSO THE PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO. 7, KHATHA NO. 3501/402/7, MEASURING EAST-WEST 65 FEET AND NORTHSOUTH 40 FEET BOTH SITUATED AT BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BBMP BEGUR WARD NO. 192 AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R2 TO CHANGE / REGISTER KHATHAS OF THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS, ETC.

¶30

IN WP NO. 15101/2024:

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

SHALINI M RAIKAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O MANJUNATH RAIKAR R/AT NO.1, 1^ST CROSS,

¶33

III MAIN PUKRAJ LAYOUT, ADUGODI BENGALURU.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SRI. MANIVANNAN G., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:76 WP No. 15100 of 2024 C/W WP No. 15101 of 2024

¶40

N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶41

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BEGUR SUB-DIVISION BOMMANAHALLI ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE BENGALURU - 560 104

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED: 23/05/2024 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. DA/PR/KTR/SAKALA-257338 ISSUED BY THE R2 THEREBY REFUSED TO TRANSFER / REGISTER KHATHA WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO. 5, KHATHA NO. 3499/401/5, MEASURING EAST WEST 65 FEET AND NORTH-SOUTH 40 FEET SITUATED AT BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BBMP BEGUR WARD NO. 192 AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R2 TO CHANGE / REGISTER KHATHA OF THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.

¶45

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

These petitions have been filed challenging the endorsement dated 23.05.2024, whereby, the request of the petitioners to register the kathas in their favour has been refused.

¶49

4 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:76 WP No. 15100 of 2024 C/W WP No. 15101 of 2024

¶51

It is not in dispute that a similar endorsement issued

¶52

to form sites in respect of Sy.No.28, Begur village, this Court in W.P. No.7332/2024 has passed an order on 28.03.2024 in the following terms –

¶53

“ ORDER

¶54

The petitioners are the owners of two adjacent sites formed in Sy.No.28 of Begur Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The petitioners have purchased their respective sites under the corresponding sale deeds. The petitioners are aggrieved by the second respondent's Endorsement dated 01.02.2024 [ Annexure-J ]. The second respondent has issued to the petitioners similar Endorsement informing them that their applications for the benefit of the revenue entries for their respective properties cannot be considered because of a complaint lodged. The Endorsements in its material part reads as under:

¶55

" ಪ��ೕ�ಸ�ಾ� , �ಾವ� ಸ� � ರುವ ಅ��ೆ ಸಂಬಂ��ದ ಸ�� ೆ �ಾ�ಾ �ಾಖ�ೆ ಾ!ರುವ ಬ�ೆ" ದೂರು �ಾಖ�ಾದ $ನ&�ೆಯ�� ಸದ� ಬ(ಾವ)ೆಯ �ಾ�ಾ �ಾಖ�ಾ� ಬ�ೆ" *+ಾರ)ೆ ನ(ೆಯು��ರುವ�ದ�ಂದ ಸದ� ಸ��ನ �ಾ�ಾ ವ�ಾ�ವ)ೆಗಳನು& �ಾತ/�ಕ1ಾ� ತ(ೆ $!ಯ�ಾ�ರುತ � ೆ ."

¶56

5 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:76 WP No. 15100 of 2024 C/W WP No. 15101 of 2024

¶58

Sri. Sammith S., the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. Pradeep Patil, the learned counsel for the BBMP, submit that these impugned Endorsements are issued because a certain complaint is filed with the office of the Lokayukta and that the second respondent has been called upon to furnish certain details by the Office of the Lokayukta.

¶59

When queried, Sri. Pradeep Patil submit that the second respondent apprehends persecution by vested interest if the revenue entries are effected when certain information is called by the office of the Lokayukta, and that the complaint is essentially because the BBMP is issuing katha even when the lands are not diverted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, and the layout has not been approved as is required under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.

¶60

In rejoinder, Sri. Sammith S., submits that the land in Sy.No.28 of of Begur Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk is diverted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes vide Official Memorandums dated 15.10.2004 and 11.11.2008 and the

¶61

6 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:76 WP No. 15100 of 2024 C/W WP No. 15101 of 2024

¶63

appropriate Planning Authority viz ., Begur Gram Panchayat under the relevant provisions, has granted approval of the plan on 09.08.2007. These assertions are not disputed, and further, the learned counsels submit in unison that in the case of similarly situate persons, the BBMP has given the benefit of the revenue entries. The second respondent has not even detailed the reasons for the complaints in the impugned Endorsements. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

a The petitions are allowed, and the Endorsements dated 01.02.2024 are quashed.

¶66

b The second respondent - the Assistant Revenue Officer - is directed to issue katha for the subject properties after collecting due charges from the petitioners.

¶67

It is needless to observe that the benefit of the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners will be subject to any orders that may be passed by the competent authority in accordance with law.”

¶68

7 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:76 WP No. 15100 of 2024 C/W WP No. 15101 of 2024

¶70

In my view, since the endorsements which were impugned in the aforementioned Writ Petitions are on the same grounds that are made out in the impugned endorsements in these Writ Petitions, the Writ Petition have also to be allowed in the same terms. Accordingly, the impugned endorsements are quashed and the Assistant Revenue Officer is directed to issue katha to the subject properties after collecting necessary charges from the petitioners.

¶71

As observed in the other case, the benefit of revenue entries in favour of the petitioners will be subject to any orders that may be passed by the competent Authority in accordance with law. Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

¶72

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶73

HNM

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Vishnu Tripathi v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Tripathi v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renew Wind Energy (Karnataka) Private Limited Vs Union of India

H. S. Abdul Hafeez Sayeed Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited Vs Union of India

Sri a Suresh Babu Vs the Chief Commissioner and

Sri Srinivas P Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Eramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner