Smt.Tejashree L Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53622 WP No. 20981 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20981 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.TEJASHREE L AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O, S R LAKSHMIKANTHACHAR NO.379/1, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, MAHADESHWARA BADAVANE, KUMBARA KOPPAL, MYSORE KARNATAKA 570016

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIRAMA ADIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001

¶13

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT O/AT, 8J4V+V8V, JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI RD, CHAMARAJAPURA, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570005

¶15

SPECIAL TAHSHILADR ZONE -3 MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE 570005

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:53622 WP No. 20981 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950 PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TRANSFER THE KATHA IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 29.11.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE -D BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE -E AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to transfer the khatha of a site bearing No.1225 at Vijayanagar, IV stage, II phase, as per the sale deed dated 29.11.2021 by considering her representation dated 14.03.2024. She has also sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to release the corrected version of sale deed dated 06.02.2006 in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

(i) The petitioner contends that the site bearing No.1225 at Vijayanagar, IV stage, II phase, was allotted to one Sri.P.P.Ayyappa. Following this, a sale deed was executed on 06.02.2006, which was duly registered in the office of the Sub-

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53622 WP No. 20981 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

registrar, Mysore South, as document No.MYS-01-13938-200506.

¶30

(ii) Later, the said Sri.P.P.Ayyappa sold the property to Sri.J.Raghavendra in terms of a sale deed dated 09.04.2007. After such transfer, the revenue records were transferred to the name of the said Sri.J.Raghavendra. He thereafter sold the site to Smt.Manasa B.L. in terms of a sale deed dated 02.05.2011 and accordingly, her name was entered in the revenue records maintained by the respondent No.2.

¶31

(iii) Thereafter, the said Smt.Manasa B.L. sold the site to the petitioner herein in terms of a sale deed dated 29.11.2021. She made a request to the respondent No.2 to transfer the khatha of the aforesaid property to her name. However, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 refused to effect khatha and instead demanded the petitioner submit the original title deed/sale deed dated 06.02.2006, which was executed in favour of Sri.P.P.Ayyappa.

¶32

(iv) The petitioner contends that the original of the sale deed dated 06.02.2006 is in the custody of the respondent No.2, which was deposited by Sri.J.Raghavendra pursuant to a

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53622 WP No. 20981 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

direction issued by the respondent No.2 at the time of transferring the khatha in his favour. The petitioner claims that despite this, the respondent No.2 had failed to release the sale deed dated 06.02.2006, which contained minor discrepancies at the time of registration, namely that the representative of the respondent No.2 had not signed the deed.

¶36

(v) The petitioner claimed that despite several requests, the khatha of the property is not made out and the original sale deed dated 06.02.2006 is not released to the petitioner. The petitioner finally made a request on 14.03.2024, again requesting the respondents to do the needful. Since the same is not considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 is in possession of the sale deed dated 06.02.2006 and therefore, a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to affix the signature of its representative and release the document to the petitioner. He also prays that a direction be issued to respondent No.2 to transfer the khatha of the property to the name of the petitioner based on the sale deed dated 29.11.2021.

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:53622 WP No. 20981 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

(i) The learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that the area in question where the site is situated is handed over by it and now lies within the administrative control of the City Municipal Council, Hootagalli. He therefore submits that the khatha, if any, has to be transferred by the City Municipal Council, Hootagalli, in the name of the petitioner. He submits that for the purposes of planning, it is the respondent No.2, which is the competent authority, but for maintenance of records and for payment of tax, it is the City Municipal Council, Hootagalli, which is responsible.

¶42

(ii) He further submits that the original of the sale deed dated 06.02.2006 is not in the possession of the respondent No.2 as alleged by the petitioner. He invited the attention of the Court to the records maintained by the respondent No.2 and submitted that the vendor of the petitioner had filed an affidavit stating that she had lost the original sale deed dated 06.02.2006 and along with the affidavit, she had enclosed a copy of the complaint lodged with the police. He therefore contends that the respondent No.2 is not in possession of the sale deed and therefore, no directions can be issued to

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:53622 WP No. 20981 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

respondent No.2 to release the corrected version of the sale deed dated 06.02.2006.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that if the respondent No.2 were to confirm that the site in question was allotted to Sri.P.P.Ayyappa and that a sale deed was executed in favour of the said Sri.P.P.Ayyappa, the petitioner would be satisfied and would take necessary steps to get her name entered in the Municipal Records.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off, by directing respondent No.2 to confirm by whatever means possible, that the site in question was allotted to Sri.P.P.Ayyappa and that a sale deed was executed in favour of Sri.P.P.Ayyappa, which was duly registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Mysore South. After receipt of confirmation from respondent No.2, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps to get the khatha transferred to her name from the office of the City Municipal Council, Hootagalli. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms.

¶49