Allowed¶¶87

Vanisha a Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Khata registration – bifurcation of khata

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2025WP/46734/2016

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 46734 of 2016 (LB-RES), NC: 2025:KHC:5307, High Court of Karnataka, decided 05.02.2025 by N S Sanjay Gowda J. Keywords: khata registration; bifurcation of khata; refusal by City Municipal Council Mandya; conversion order of Deputy Commissioner dated 29.04.1978 for Sy.No.199/3CP2; no condition of Planning Authority approval for subdivision; betterment charges; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; WP No.8859 of 2021 (Smt.Prabhavathi M.S.) distinguished; endorsement dated 28.12.2015 quashed; petitioner Vanisha A Jain.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; endorsement dated 28.12.2015 quashed; CMC, Mandya directed to accept necessary betterment charges and register the Khatha in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plot purchased by her. ¶¶87

Vanisha a Jain Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶87

Issue for consideration

Whether the City Municipal Council, Mandya could refuse to register/bifurcate the Khata in respect of the petitioner's purchased plot on the ground that the property was not subdivided in accordance with the Planning Authority's approval, when the Deputy Commissioner's conversion order imposed no such condition. +1 more

¶¶46

Court's answer

Since the Deputy Commissioner's conversion order imposed no condition stipulating division of the property or requiring approval of the Planning Authority or the Municipal Council, the CMC cannot contend that a sale of a portion of the property was impermissible, nor reject the claim for bifurcation of the Khata on that ground.

¶¶69

Ratio / Principle

The person who obtained the order of conversion was entitled to utilize it in any manner he deemed fit, the only condition being that he obtain approval for building a structure on the particular land.

¶¶73

Key takeaways

The decision in WP No.8859 of 2021 has no application to the present case, since that case was not considering an order of conversion of the kind in question and no such condition as described therein was stipulated here.ratio¶¶79
The CMC employed double standards: having already bifurcated and recognized the division of the Khatha in respect of one portion (registered in favour of Sunandamma), it was highly incorrect for the Municipality to refuse registration of the Khatha in respect of the remaining portion of a purchaser.ratio¶¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Khata registration – bifurcation of khata – refusal by City Municipal Council, Mandya on the ground that the property was not subdivided in accordance with Planning Authority approval – land Sy.No.199/3CP2 converted for non-agricultural use by Deputy Commissioner's order dated 29.04.1978 subject to ten conditions, none requiring Planning Authority approval for division – holder of conversion order entitled to utilise it as deemed fit, subject only to building-plan approval – CMC's reliance on co-ordinate Bench decision in Smt.Prabhavathi M.S. (WP No.8859 of 2021) distinguished, that case involving different facts – CMC guilty of double standards, having already bifurcated the khata for the remaining portion in favour of GPA holder Sunandamma – endorsement dated 28.12.2015 quashed – CMC directed to accept betterment charges and register khata in favour of petitioner – writ petition allowed (N S Sanjay Gowda J, 05.02.2025).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 46734 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VANISHA A JAIN W/O R PRADEEP, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT 2966, AZAD NAGAR, OPP TO SHANKARMUTT, OLD M.C.ROAD, MANDYA CITY-571401

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

¶16

MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401

¶18

MANDYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 4TH CROSS ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,

¶19

MANDYA - 571 401. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. G.M.ANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:28.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY OR ILLEGALLY VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the City

¶29

Municipal Council, Mandya, (for short, ‘ the CMC ’) for registering the Khata in respect of the property which has been purchased by the petitioner.

¶30

The impugned endorsement reads as follows:

¶31

“£ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÁ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀå

¶32

¸ÀASÉå;£À¸ÀªÀÄA/¤.±Á/¹.Dgï/162/15-16

¶33

¢£ÁAPÀ: 28/12/2015

¶34

-: »A§gÀºÀ :-

¶35

¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:1/15/15 gÀAzÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹

¶36

ªÀÄAqÀå vÁ॥ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ॥ ªÀÄAqÀå UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA 199/3¹-¦2 gÀ°è 0.05-00 UÀÄAmÉ( (160*35 Cr ) ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ C£ÀåPÁæAvÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ MlÄÖ

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016

¶39

«¹ÛÃtðzÀ°è vÁªÀÅ j॥ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀ 90*35

¶40

Cr ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ D©üªÀÈ¢Þ ±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ SÁvÁ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²°¹zÀÄÝ, F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ªÀÄAqÀå £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ «£Áå¸À £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV «¨sÀd£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ «¨sÀd£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ «£Áå¸À £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ C£ÀÄªÉÆzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ªÀÄAqÀå £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÁzÀå«®è¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÉÆ¸ÀzÁV D¹Û zÁR¯ÁäqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯É EqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶41

UÉ, ²æÃªÀÄw/²æÃ ªÀ¤ÃµÁ.J.eÉÊ£ï PÉÆA Dgï ¥Àæ¢Ã¥ï, ºÀ¼ÉÃ JA.¹ gÀ¸ÉÛ CeÁzï £ÀUÀgÀ, ªÀÄAqÀå”

¶42

As could be seen from the above, the CMC admits that

¶43

0.05-00 guntas of land measuring 160’ x 35’ was permitted to be used for non-residential purposes by the Deputy Commissioner and out of this extent of 160’x35’, the petitioner had purchased 90’x35’.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016

¶46

According to the CMC, since the property was not subdivided in accordance with the approval of the Planning Authority, the CMC cannot register the Khata.

¶47

The land in question is the land bearing Sy.No.199/3CP2, which was permitted to be used for nonagricultural purposes by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 29.04.1978. While permitting the owner to use the land for non-agricultural purposes, the Deputy Commissioner imposed the following conditions:

¶48

“PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÁåAqï gÉ«£Àå C¢¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 64£ÉÃ ¸ÉPÀë£ï 90(2)gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉ F PÉ¼ÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä PÉÊUÁjPÉ ¸ÁÜ¦¸ÀÄªÀÄ §UÉÎ ²æÃªÀÄw. £ÀÆgÉÃ©AiÀÄªÀÄä gÀªÀjUÉ F PÉ¼ÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶49

CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÁªÀiË®å JPÀgÉ 1PÉÌ 1.400 gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¼ÀvÉ ¦ÃdÄ 25 gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶50

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ £ÀA.Dgï.1.90 ¢:22.10.68PÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÖ bÁ¥Á PÁUÀzÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÄZÀÑ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016

¶53

ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖªÁUÀ ¨ÁdÄzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ C£Á£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀzÀAvÉ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀlÖ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶54

ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖªÁUÀ mË£ï ¥Áè£ï PÁ£ÀÆ¤UÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶55

d«ÄÃ¤£À ºÀPÀÄÌ ¨sÁzsÀåvÉUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ®Æè CrØ§gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶56

¯ÉÃOmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉlgïªÉÄAmï ¦üÃAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄÄ¤¹¥Á°n ªÀÄAqÀå UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄvÀUÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶57

F eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß .. PÀlÖ®Ä ªÀiÁvÀæ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 8. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÁ¸ÀzÀªÀÄ£É PÀlÄÖªÀAvÉ ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÃ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖzÀjAzÀ ¯ÉÊ¸É£ïì£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶58

CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä d«ÄÃ¤£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ EAzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 30 CrUÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ CUÀ® ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ M¦à¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶59

CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ PÀlÄÖªÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ©°ØAUï ¨ÉÊ¯Á¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸À¨ï mÁåPÀÎ¼À£ÀÄß ©qÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶60

UÁæªÀÄ : ªÀÄAqÀå ºÉÆÃ§½ : PÀ¸À¨Á vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ : ªÀÄAqÀå ¸À:£ÀA : 19:1J «¹ÛÃtð : 160:36 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ : 1-00

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016

¶63

PÀAzÁAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß D UÁæªÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌzÀ°è PÀ«Ää ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.. vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÉPÀÌzÀ°è §gÉzÀÄ C¹¸ÉÖAmï ¸ÀÆ¥ÀjmÉAqÉAlæªÀjAzÀ ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É ªÀiÁr¹ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶64

EzÀgÀ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀ¤UÉ gÀªÁ¤¹zÉ.

¶65

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £ÀPÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ §UÉÎ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀjUÉ gÀªÀ¤¹zÉ.

¶66

EzÉ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw CzsÀåPÀëjUÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ”

¶67

As could be seen from the above, the Deputy

¶68

Commissioner did not impose any condition that the applicant therein was required to obtain the approval of the Planning Authority.

¶69

Since there was no condition imposed by the Deputy Commissioner stipulating for division of the property, the approval of the Planning Authority or the Municipal Council was required, the CMC cannot contend that a sale of the portion of the property was impermissible

¶70

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016

¶72

and consequently, rejected the claim for bifurcation of the Khata.

¶73

It may be pertinent to notice here that though the Planning Authority was in existence since 1975, the Deputy Commissioner has not imposed any condition which required obtaining the approval of the Planning Authority. This would therefore mean that the person who obtained the order of conversion was entitled to utilize it in any manner that he deemed fit and the only condition that he was required to comply was that he was required to obtain the approval for building a structure on the particular land in question.

¶74

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in WP No.8859 of 2021¹ to contend that if an order of conversion has not been utilized within a reasonable

¶75

1 Smt.Prabhavathi M.S. and another vs. State of Karnataka and others, WP No.8859 of 2021, DD: 06.12.2021, Coram: Hon’ble Justice M.Nagaprasanna

¶76

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016

¶77

time, the applicants therein cannot claim for

¶78

registration of the Khata.

¶79

As could be noticed in that case, this Court was not considering an order of conversion, inasmuch as, the present case, in which no such condition as described above was stipulated. In that view of the matter, this decision can have no application to the case on hand.

¶80

It is also pertinent to notice here that the CMC is employing double standards. In respect of the remaining portion, the GPA holder-Sunandamma who had in fact sold the property to the petitioner and the purchaser had also re-sold the property, the City Municipal Council has admittedly bifurcated the Khatha in respect of the remaining portion and registered it in the name of Sunandamma. At that point of time, the Corporation did not choose to put forth the contention that it is now trying to put forth and it has in fact permitted bifurcation of Khatha.

¶81

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016

¶83

If the property as a whole is already bifurcated and the division is recognized in respect of one portion, it

¶84

would be highly incorrect on the part of the Municipality to contend that it will not register the Khatha in respect of the remaining portion of a purchaser.

¶85

I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is quashed .

¶86

The CMC, Mandya is directed to accept the necessary betterment charges, and register the Khatha in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plot purchased by her.

¶87

The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶88

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

¶89

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

Vanisha a Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanisha a Jain v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt K Jayalakshmi Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

K B Nishat Alikhan Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Sri M v Shankarappa Vs the Town Municipality

Sri Nagaraju B N Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Le Meridian Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Anand Kumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner