Dismissed¶83

M. C. Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025WP/25887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC WP No. 25887 of 2024 (LB-RES), decided 19-09-2025, Sachin Shankar Magadum J: e-khata/khata extract refused for site in converted land not forming part of approved layout; Section 17(2B) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961; Government circulars dated 22.03.2017 and No.Na.Aa.E.185.Bemapra:2017 dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure-R5); no betterment charges collected, so no estoppel as in coordinate-Bench cases; mandamus denied for want of corresponding duty and legal right; endorsement dated 05.08.2024 upheld; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Section 17(2B) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 imposes a mandatory duty on landowners and developers to obtain approval of the layout plan from the competent planning authority. ¶66

M. C. Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶83

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who purchased a site carved out of converted land that admittedly does not form part of an approved layout, had a legal right to demand e-khata/khata extract from respondent No.3. +2 more

¶62

Court's answer

Section 17(2B) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 imposes a mandatory duty on landowners and developers to obtain approval of the layout plan from the competent planning authority.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 17(2B), individual site owners acquire enforceable rights in respect of sites only upon development of the layout in accordance with the sanctioned plan, securing a completion certificate, and handing over the roads, civic amenity sites and parks to the local authority.

¶66

Key takeaways

The object behind insertion of sub-section (2B) is to ensure orderly development of urban areas, proper provision of civic amenities, and to prevent mushrooming of illegal layouts which burden public infrastructure.ratio¶66
In the present case, no sanctioned layout plan has been submitted to or approved by the competent planning authority, and respondent No.3 has not collected any betterment charges from the petitioner.ratio¶67
The local authority's request to the State Government to collect betterment charges as a condition for regularisation was turned down; the State instead issued a Circular (Annexure-R5) categorically directing that no e-khata be issued for sites formed without approval of a layout plan.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-RES) No. 25887 of 2024, High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum J., oral order, 19-09-2025): dismissed. Petitioner, purchaser under registered sale deed dated 20.11.2008 of site bearing Town Panchayat Assessment No.2054/1 at A.H. Vijaya Badavane, Holalkere Town (manual khata issued; taxes regularly paid), sought certiorari against Holalkere Town Municipality's endorsement No.PU.HO.KAM.SHA.C.R:235:2024-25 dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure-E) rejecting his e-khata application, and mandamus for e-khata/khata extract. Held: Section 17(2B), Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 mandatorily requires layout-plan approval, and site owners acquire enforceable rights only upon development per sanctioned plan, completion certificate and handover of roads, parks and civic amenity sites; the site admittedly lay outside an approved layout. Unlike the coordinate-Bench cases (where voluntarily collected betterment charges raised an estoppel), respondent No.3 collected no betterment charges, and State circulars dated 22.03.2017 and No.Na.Aa.E.185.Bemapra:2017 dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure-R5) bar e-khata without layout approval. With no corresponding duty on the authority nor legal right in the petitioner, mandamus was refused; coordinate-Bench reliance held misplaced; State invited to evolve a regularisation policy (obiter). Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 25887 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M. C. NAGARAJA S/O. M. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O. GUNDERI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION V.V. TOWERS BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

HOLALKERE TOWN MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HOLALKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;

¶24

SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN NO.PU.HO.KAM.SHA.C.R:235:2024-25 DATED 05.08.2024 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E TO THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following

¶30

reliefs:

¶31

"a) Issue writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, in the nature of writ, setting aside the endorsement issued by the 3^rd respondent in No.PU.HO.KAM.SHA.C.R:235:2024-25 dated 05.08.2024 is produced as Annexure-E, to this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

b) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, in the nature of writ, directing the 3^rd respondent to issue e-katha and katha extract in respect of site bearing Town Panchayat katha/assessment No.2054/1 measuring east to west 30 feet north to south 60 feet, situated at A.H.Vijaya Badavane, Holalkere Town, in the interest of justice and equity. "

¶35

The petitioner has purchased a residential site bearing Town Panchayat Assessment No.2054/1 measuring east-west 30 feet and north-south 60 feet situated at A.H. Vijaya Badavane, Holalkere Town, for valuable sale consideration under a registered sale deed dated 20.11.2008. The petitioner asserts that manual khata was issued by the local authority as evidenced by Annexures-A and B. The petitioner further contends that he has been regularly paying property tax in respect of the said residential sites, and the SAS Form for the year 202425 evidences the same at Annexure-C.

¶36

The petitioner submitted an application before

¶37

respondent No.3 seeking issuance of e-khata in respect of

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the petition schedule property by enclosing the title deed, conversion order, and tax paid receipts. However, respondent No.3 rejected the application vide endorsement dated 05.08.2024, citing reliance on the circulars issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 dated 22.03.2017 and 05.01.2018 respectively. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the same and issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to issue e-khata and khata extract in respect of the petition property.

¶42

Respondent No.3 – Holalkere Town Municipality

¶43

has filed objections opposing the petition. It is contended

¶44

that the impugned endorsement is strictly in conformity with Circular No.7/TTP/2017 dated 22.03.2017 issued by respondent No.1. By referring to the said notification as well as the order passed by the Karnataka Lokayukta in Complaint No.Upa-Lok/B.D.4551/DRE-5, respondent No.3 submits that it was bound to reject the petitioner’s request. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 has

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

made efforts by addressing a letter to the Government seeking directions to enable issuance of e-khata by collecting betterment charges at 10% of the current market value of sites. This representation is placed at Annexure-R4. Respondent No.3 further submits that despite such representation, respondent No.1 issued another Circular to respondent No.2 bearing No.Na.Aa.E.185.Bemapra:2017 dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure-R5), specifically prohibiting issuance of e-khata in respect of plots which do not have layout plan approval from the competent authority.

¶48

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.3. The Court has also carefully perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Before considering the rival submissions, this

¶53

Court deems it appropriate to advert to the statutory framework. In particular, sub-section (2B) of Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 is

¶54

relevant. For ready reference, the said provision is extracted below:

¶55

"(2B) The Planning Authority shall ensure the completion of all development works including all infrastructure facilities as mentioned in sub-section (2A) under the supervision of the concerned Authority/Agency/Department. On obtaining the certificate of completion from the concerned Authority/Agency/Department on having completed all the development works and on relinquishment of the roads, parks to the local authority and Civic Amenity areas to the Planning Authority and handing over the same, the Planning Authority may issue the final layout plan affixing the seal of the Planning Authority for registration purpose.

¶56

Provided that no Commencement Certificate or licence shall be sanctioned or issued for buildings on sites in the layout unless the final layout plan is issued."

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The reliance placed by the petitioner on certain coordinate Bench decisions is wholly misplaced and cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In those decisions, the factual situation was entirely different. The local authority therein, without any statutory authority, had collected betterment charges from the site owners, and the sites in question were carved out of duly converted lands. Having voluntarily collected betterment charges, the local authority was estopped from denying issuance of e-khata to the purchasers of such sites, and it was in that context that directions were issued by the coordinate Bench to process khatas in favour of the site owners.

¶61

In contradistinction, the case on hand stands on

¶62

a different footing. Though the site purchased by the petitioner is carved out of converted land, the admitted position is that the same does not form part of an approved layout. Section 17(2B) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, was consciously

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

introduced with the legislative object of curbing haphazard

¶66

and unregulated formation of sites in revenue lands and converted lands. The provision imposes a mandatory duty on landowners and developers to obtain approval of the layout plan from the competent planning authority. It further stipulates that only upon development of the layout in accordance with the sanctioned plan, securing a completion certificate, and handing over the roads, civic amenity sites and parks to the local authority, can individual site owners acquire enforceable rights in respect of the sites. The object behind insertion of sub-section (2B) is, therefore, to ensure orderly development of urban areas, proper provision of civic amenities, and to prevent mushrooming of illegal layouts which burden public infrastructure.

¶67

In the present case, the admitted position is that no sanctioned layout plan has been submitted to or approved by the competent planning authority. Further, unlike in the earlier cases relied upon by the petitioner,

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

respondent No.3 has not collected any betterment charges from the petitioner. On the contrary, the records disclose that the local authority, noticing the existence of such sites carved out of converted lands without sanction, had sought permission from the State Government to collect betterment charges as a condition for regularisation. The said request was turned down, and the State, instead, issued a Circular (Annexure-R5) categorically directing that no e-khata should be issued in respect of sites formed without approval of a layout plan.

¶71

In light of the above statutory mandate and the Government Circulars, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.3 cannot be said to be under any legal obligation to entertain the petitioner’s request for issuance of e-khata. Equally, the petitioner, having purchased a site which admittedly does not form part of a sanctioned layout, cannot claim a corresponding legal right to demand issuance of e-khata. A writ of mandamus lies only where there exists a corresponding duty cast on the authority

¶72

10 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

and a legal right vested in the petitioner. In the absence of both, no such writ can be issued. Moreover, the State Government itself, in exercise of its statutory powers, has clarified that issuance of khata contrary to the mandate of Section 17(2B) of the Act is impermissible. Therefore, the petitioner’s prayer for mandamus deserves rejection.

¶76

This Court is further of the opinion that the larger issue arising out of such transactions needs to be addressed at the policy level. With increasing instances of purchasers acquiring sites in converted lands which are not part of sanctioned layouts, there is a pressing necessity for the State to devise a comprehensive scheme to regulate such transactions. Unless and until the State formulates appropriate guidelines or a regularisation mechanism consistent with the object of Section 17(2B), courts cannot, in individual cases, bypass the statutory

¶77

mandate and issue directions contrary to law. The legislative intent behind insertion of Section 17(2B) is to strike a balance between urban development and the

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:37805 WP No. 25887 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

rights of innocent purchasers, while ensuring that civic infrastructure and planned growth of towns are not compromised. In this backdrop, this Court finds no

¶82

ground to interfere with the endorsement impugned.

¶83

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶84

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶85

¶86

List No.: 1

M. C. Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. C. Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmaraj H R Vs State by Hosanagar Police

Sri Venkataramana Vs the State of Karnataka

Usha Kumari Vs the State of Karnataka

Aditya Avinash Karmarkar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Brinda Battacharya Alias Brinda Roshan Vs the State of Karnataka

Irshad Ahamed Vs State of Karnataka by