Sri.H.R.Nagaraja Setty Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:45136 WP No. 31917 of 2017

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31917 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. H.R.NAGARAJA SETTY SON OF LATE S.V. RAMAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND VIVEKANANDA B.ED. COLLEGE, HENJAGONDANAHALLI EXTENSION ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT PIN CODE 573103

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

¶14

THE CHIEF OFFICER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT PIN CODE – 573103

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶17

SMT. VIDYA S. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45136 WP No. 31917 of 2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DATED 22.05.2017 VIDE REFERENCE NO.NA.SA.AA(6) C.R./KA.PA./11/2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.£À.¸À.C(6)¹.Dgï/PÀ.¥À./11/2017-18 dated 22.05.2017 issued by

¶25

respondent No.2. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider her application dated 19.04.2017 for grant of licence and approval of the building plan.

¶26

The petitioner claims to be the owner of sites bearing Nos.1 and 4 assessed by respondent No.2 as Khatha Nos.5636/A and 5639/A situated at Ward No.27 of Maruthi Nagar, Arasikere Town, Hassan district. He contends that he submitted an application dated 19.04.2017 before the respondent No.2 seeking grant of building licence along with a plan. Respondent No.2, however, rejected the said request by

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45136 WP No. 31917 of 2017

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

issuing an endorsement dated 22.05.2017, wherein it was stated that in view of the circular dated 22.01.2016 issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, no building plan can be sanctioned unless the layout is duly approved.

¶30

Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the

¶31

petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question now lies within the limits of the municipal council and therefore there is no need to get the land converted. He however contends that the erstwhile panchayat had sanctioned a layout plan, and therefore, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is not in accordance with law and therefore warrants interference.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the impugned endorsement is issued pursuant to the circular issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, by which, all municipal bodies were directed not to furnish a technical opinion for grant of building plans in respect of properties that were not converted for non-residential use or

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45136 WP No. 31917 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

where, after such conversion, the layout of residential sites was not duly approved. She further submits that subsequently another circular dated 04.05.2017 was issued by the Director of Town and Country planning, wherein it was clarified that in respect of lands converted prior to 08.12.1976 and where Khathas were made out by the local authorities, technical opinion may be given for grant of building plan and licence. She submits that in the instant case, the land in question was not converted for non-agricultural purpose, though a plan was sanctioned by the erstwhile Panchayat. She therefore contends that the property of the petitioner is not formed in accordance with law and hence, even if the petitioner has obtained an E- Khatha, he is not entitled for sanction of building plan in view of the circulars issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning.

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submits that the State Government is in the process of identifying the properties that are formed without following the due to process of law and a scheme is being formulated for regularisation of such properties so that they are assessed to property tax and regularised. He therefore submits that the

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:45136 WP No. 31917 of 2017

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

petitioner may avail the benefit of the scheme and thereafter the respondent No.2 may consider the request of the petitioner

¶42

for grant of building plan and licence.

¶43

The petitioner has placed on record certain additional documents which go to show that the property which the petitioner is claiming formed part of Sy.No.291/1(P) of Arasikere Village, Byranayakanahalli Dakale, which was purportedly converted under an order of the Tahasildar, Arasikere Taluk, dated 04.04.1984 for residential purposes.

¶44

It also appears that the erstwhile Panchayat had sanctioned a layout plan during 1991-92. It is relevant to note that under Section 81 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, which was in force as on the date of the sanction of the layout plan by the Panchayat reads as follows:

¶45

"81. Powers of Planning Authority to be

¶46

exercised by certain officers .- For the purpose of Section 14 [Section 14B], Section 15, Section 18, Section 24, Section 35, sub-section (2) of Section 46 and Section 47, the powers and functions of the Planning Authority may, subject to approval of the State Government, be exercised and performed by the following authorities, namely:-

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45136 WP No. 31917 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

(a) in the case of a Municipal Corporation, by the Commissioner of the corporation, in the area under the jurisdiction of the corporation;

¶50

(b) in the case of a Municipal Council, by the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality;

¶51

(c) in the case of a Mandal Panchayat by the Secretary of the Mandal Panchayat;

¶52

(d) in the case of any other local authority, by the person exercising the powers of the Chief Executive Authority."

¶53

It is, therefore, apparent that the Arasikere Grama Panchayat was the Planning Authority and it having sanctioned a layout plan, the layout was duly formed and hence, there can be no impediment for assessing the property in the records of the Panchayat. Now that the area has fallen within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat, the Town Panchayat, Arasikere is bound in law to enter the name of the petitioner in respect of the property bearing Nos.1 and 4 and bearing katha Nos.5636A and 5639A situate at Ward No.27, Maruthi Nagar, Arasikere Town, Hassan District and issue appropriate extracts indicating that the petitioner is the owner of the said property. The Town Panchayat, Arasikere, shall also take steps to enter the name of the petitioner in the eKhata and issue eKhata to the petitioner

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45136 WP No. 31917 of 2017

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

reflecting his name in respect of the aforesaid property. Therefore, the impugned endorsement bearing No.£À.¸À.C(6)¹.Dgï/PÀ.¥À./11/2017-18 dated 22.05.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 19.04.2017 for grant of building licence. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶57

The Writ Petition is disposed off on the above terms.

¶58

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶59

HJ-para Nos.1 to 6 SMA-from para No.7 till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri.H.R.Nagaraja Setty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.H.R.Nagaraja Setty 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

Smt Lokeshwari Vs Smt Saraswathamma

Mr Manjunath Vs the Executive Officer

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Kirloskar Electric Company Employees Housing Co. Op Society (Regd.)

Mr. Aslam Zackria Sait Vs the Assistant Revenue Officer

M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the Town Panchayath

M/S.D K Agencies Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike