Sri Nithin Saraf Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by REVENUE DEPARTEMENT, CHAITHANYA REPRESENTED BY ITS K PRINCIPAL SECRETARIES TO GOVERNMENT, Location: OFFICE AT 3RD GATE, 5TH FLOOR, HIGH COURT OF M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, OFFICE AT ROOM NO.436, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ARSIKERE REPRESENTED BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, OFFICE AT B.H. ROAD, SADHANA THEATRE, HASSAN - 573 103.

¶17

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN, D.C. OFFICE, B.M. ROAD, RANGOLI HALLA, HASSAN, KARNATKA - 573 201.

¶18

LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY ARSIKERE, OPPOSITE C.M.C ARASIKERE, B.H ROAD, ARASIKERE - 573-103

¶19

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶20

COMMISSIONER,

¶21

CITY MUNICIPAL ARSIKERE OFFICE AT B.H. ROAD, SADHANA THEATRE, HASSAN - 573 103.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ARSIKERE- SUB DIVISION ARASIKERE - 573 103

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MILIND DANGE, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 AND R7 SMT. VIDYA SELVAMANY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. A.N. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R6 - SERVED)

¶25

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.05.2025 ISSUED RESPONDENT NO.6 BEARING NO. Na.Sa.Aa(4) C.R/219/2020-21 BY THE OFFICER

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL, ARSIKERE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner, after obtaining the necessary

¶33

conversion order and the sanction plan, has developed a layout in 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Survey No.251/2 and 251/3 of Arasikere (0-23 guntas in Survey No.251/2 and 0-30 guntas in Survey No.251/3). Upon completion of the layout formation, he has requested respondent No.3 to issue the necessary E-Khata so that he can alienate the sites formed. However, the same has been refused by issuing an endorsement dated 27.05.2025 vide AnnexureA to the writ petition by respondent No.3, on the ground that the gradient of the drainage / rainwater drainage constructed in the layout is improper. Aggrieved by the

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

same, the present writ petition is filed with the following

¶38

prayers:

¶39

"I. Writ in the nature of Certiorari and set aside the impugned endorsement dated 27.05.2025 issued Respondent No.6 bearing No.Na.Sa.Aa(4) C.R/219/2020-21 by the officer of the City Municipal, Arsikere vide Annexure-A.

¶40

II. ISSUE any other Writ of mandamus or any order or direction and direct the Respondent Authorities and directing them to register E-Khatha of the Petitioner's sites.

¶41

III. To pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice and equity."

¶42

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on 22.08.2025, this Court passed the following

¶43

order:

¶44

"The only reason for which Katha has been denied by the authorities concerned in respect of the properties which are the subject matter of the writ petition is that the gradient of the drainage constructed in the layout is improper.

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

It is the specific case of the petitioner that such observation is made with a mala fide interest. Sri.Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that if the jurisdictional Executive Engineer (PWD) is directed to inspect the drainage in the layout and give a finding as to the correctness of it or not and if the same is not correct and if he suggests the alteration that is required to be made, the petitioner is ready and willing to do the same.

¶49

The jurisdictional Executive Engineer (PWD) is hereby directed to inspect the drainage system on the properties which are the subject matter of the writ petition and submit a report as to whether the same is made properly or not and if not proper, what is the correction to be made. The same shall be done by next date of hearing.

¶50

The learned AGA is directed to give suitable instructions to the jurisdictional Executive Engineer (PWD).

¶51

At the time of inspection, notice shall be given to the petitioner and concerned Authorities.

¶52

At the request of learned AGA, call on 10.09.2025."

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

As the order could not be complied with by the concerned, on 18.09.2025 the following order was passed:

¶57

"On 22.08.2025, this Court had directed the jurisdictional Executive Engineer (PWD) to do the necessary inspection.

¶58

The learned AGA, upon instructions, submits that the Assistant Executive Engineer(PWD), Hassan, may be directed to do the necessary inspection as the jurisdictional Executive Engineer is unable to do so due to his other official duties.

¶59

The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for the same. Hence, the Assistant Executive Engineer (PWD), Hassan, is directed to do the necessary inspection as directed by this Court by its Order dated 22.08.2025 and submit his report by the next date of hearing.

¶60

Call on 26.09.2025."

¶61

On 26.09.2025, upon respondents filing a

¶62

memo dated 26.09.2025, the following order was passed:

¶63

"Respondents have filed a memo dated 26.09.2025 which is taken on record. Along with the said memo, the respondents have mentioned

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the requirements to be complied by the petitioner to approve the layout and to issue 'E' katha.

¶67

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that requirements will be complied by next date of hearing.

¶68

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Hassan is directed to state by next date of hearing whether the petitioner has complied with the requirements as mentioned above.

¶69

At the request of parties, list for further hearing on 09.10.2025."

¶70

Today, the learned Additional Government Advocate has filed a memo dated 24.10.2025, which is signed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Hassan. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner has complied with all the necessary requirements. He has specifically submitted that the gradient in respect of the drainage / rainwater drainage has been altered and the requirements have been complied with.

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

However, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and respondent No.5 submits that they have been served with a copy of the memo filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate today and consequently, they could not get the necessary instructions and vehemently oppose disposal of the writ petition without hearing them on the said memo.

¶74

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has alleged malafides against respondent No.3 and the impugned order has been issued because respondent No.3 is biased against the petitioner and the only allegation made in the impugned order is that the gradient of the drainage / rainwater drainage is improper and for the said reason, this Court appointed the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Hassan to verify and report. It is also submitted that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has once again made alterations to the drainage

¶75

/ rainwater drainage. This has been verified by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Hassan, who is

¶76

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

technically competent to do it and based on his report, the learned Additional Government Advocate has made a submission that all the requirements have been complied with.

¶79

It is seen that respondent No.3 is Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, Arasikere does not have the necessary technical competence to verify whether the gradient is proper or not. He must necessarily rely upon a PWD Engineer. In the instant case, the Assistant Executive Engineer of Hassan has submitted a report. The impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is only on the ground that the gradient of the drainage / rainwater drainage is improper. Further, under the circumstances when malafides are alleged against respondent No.3 and factually it is shown to the Court that the gradient of the drainage / rainwater drainage is set-right by the petitioner, I find no reason why the request of respondent No.3 for an adjournment has to be considered. Similarly, respondent No.5 is the Local Planning Authority, Arasikere,

¶80

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

whose job is to sanction a plan when a request is made in accordance with law, which it has already done. It has been impleaded as respondent No.5 as it is a just and necessary party and it is only a formal party. It cannot have any role in respect of the impugned order or compliance with it. For that reason, the adjournment prayed for by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 is also rejected.

¶83

As the learned Additional Government

¶84

Advocate, upon instructions, submits that all the necessary compliances have been complied with, by the petitioner, I see no reason why the writ petition as prayed for, should not be allowed. Hence the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i. The impugned endorsement dated

¶87

27.05.2025 vide Annexure-A to the writ

¶88

petition passed by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside.

¶89

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:43940 WP No. 19258 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to register E-Khata of the petitioner's sites upon the petitioner complying with the required formalities within 120 days from such compliance.

¶92

iii. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of accordingly.

¶93

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶94

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Sri Nithin Saraf v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nithin Saraf v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Vibha Manish Tejani Vs Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth

Mr K Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jyothi K N Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramanjani Vs State by Hennur Police

Siddalingappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh Chandra C Barfiwala Vs Smt Deeptee K Barfiwala