Allowed¶50

S Rangaswamy v. the City (Town ) Municipal Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2026WP/21165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Change of khata / joint khata; duty of Municipal Authorities to decide katha-transfer applications within reasonable time, accept-or-reject with reasons; mandamus; 60-day compliance deadline; non-response to representation/legal notice dated 05.06.2024; property purchased by registered sale deed dated 22.07.2022; City Municipal Council, Doddaballapura; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Suraj Govindaraj J.; decided 10-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed by mandamus to consider the application dated 05.06.2024 and pass necessary orders within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, without prejudice (no opinion expressed on the petitioners' entitlement). ¶50

S Rangaswamy Vs the City (Town ) Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents (City Municipal Council, Doddaballapura authorities) are bound to consider the petitioners' representation/legal notice dated 05.06.2024 seeking effecting of the joint khata of the site purchased under the registered sale deed dated 22.07.2022, and to pass necessary orders within a reasonable time.

¶36

Court's answer

Whenever an application for change of katha is made, the Municipal Authorities are required to consider it and pass necessary orders within a reasonable amount of time, either accepting or rejecting the application, accompanied by reasons in either case.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Since the application dated 05.06.2024 had not been considered by the respondents till date, mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider that application and pass necessary orders within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶51

Key takeaways

This Court has expressly not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners; the direction is limited to consideration of the application, leaving the substantive entitlement open.obiter¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), W.P. No. 21165 of 2024 (LB-RES), decided 10.02.2026 by Suraj Govindaraj J.: Petitioners S Rangaswamy and Sanjeevanayaka D N purchased a site at Doddaballapura under a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2022 and applied on 05.06.2024 for change of khata so as to reflect their joint khata; the City Municipal Council authorities did not act on the application. Holding that whenever an application for change of katha is made, the Municipal Authorities must consider it and pass necessary orders — accepting or rejecting — within a reasonable time, accompanied by reasons, the Court allowed the writ petition (Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India) and issued a mandamus to the respondents to consider the application dated 05.06.2024 and pass necessary orders within 60 days of receipt of a copy of the order, expressly stating that it had not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8091 WP No. 21165 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATXAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21165 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S RANGASWAMY

¶10

SON OF LATE SEETHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶11

R/AT HOUSE NO 417

¶12

15TH WARD VAHNIKARA PETE

¶13

TANK ROAD DODDABALLAPURA TOWN DODDABALLAPURA

¶14

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561 203

¶15

SANJEEVANAYAKA D N

¶16

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

SON OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 2 15TH WARD VANIKARA PETE TANK ROAD

¶18

DODDABALLAPURA TOWN DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561 203

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. GURURAJA S SANGUR., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE CITY (TOWN ) MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL DODDABALLAPURA TALUK

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:8091 WP No. 21165 of 2024

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

DODDABALLAPURA

¶27

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561203

¶28

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REVENUE DEPARTMENT CITY (TOWN) MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DODDABALLAPURA LTALUK DODDABALLAPURA

¶29

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561203

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS .K. N.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENTS / LEGAL NOTICE DATED 05/06/2024 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO AFFECT THE JOINT KHATA OF THE SITE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 22/07/2022. WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶36

“i) Issue a writ; in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to consider the representations given to the respondents/ legal notice dated 5-6-2024 and direct the respondents to affect the joint Khata of the site property purchased by the petitioners as per

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:8091 WP No. 21165 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the registered sale deed dated 22-7-2022. which is at Annexure-A.

¶41

ii) Issue any other writ or order or direction that this Hon'ble Court is deems fit in the facts and circumstances in the ends of justice.”

¶42

The petitioners are stated to have purchased the petition schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2022 and subsequently had submitted an application for change of katha, which has not been considered by the respondents. In that background, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶43

Whenever an application for change of katha is made, it is required for the Municipal Authorities to consider the same and pass necessary orders within a reasonable amount of time, either accepting or rejecting the said application, in either case, to be accompanied by reasons.

¶44

In the present case, the application having been filed on 05.06.2024 has not been considered by the respondents till date.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:8091 WP No. 21165 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶51

ii) Mandamus is directed to the respondents to consider the application dated 05.06.2024 and pass necessary orders within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners.

¶53

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶54

KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

S Rangaswamy v. the City (Town ) Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Rangaswamy v. the City (Town ) Municipal Commissioner

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

G B Jagadeesh Vs the Chief Officer

Smt Shanthamma G Vs the Chief Election Commissioner

Sri Sanjeev Rao Vs the Principal Secretary

G K Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Usha Mahesh Dasar Vs State of Karnataka

Vsc Properties Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka