- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6356 WP No. 9298 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 9298 OF 2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HONNAMMA W/O LATE SAMPANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPEL HAGADUGU VILALGE, BENGALURU-560 066. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. THANIMA BEKAL., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGLAURU-560 001 RERPESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE WHITEFIELD DIVISION BENGALURU-560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-2 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6356 WP No. 9298 of 2019 IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ANNEXURE-A DATED 14.01.2019 BEARING NO. BRU.BEM.MA.PA/SA.KA.A/VY.UVI/529/18-19. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner claiming to be an allottee of a site under the Ashraya Scheme had sought for issuance of Khatha and accordingly the Grama Panchayat accepted the request and registered her as the Khatedar, On the property coming within the purview of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP'), the Khatha was also registered in her favor in the year 2017. The petitioner has also been remitting the tax to the BBMP. 2. The petitioner has also sought for and obtained the approval of a plan to construct a building on 15.03.2018 and the petitioner states that pursuant to the approval, she has put up a structure. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6356 WP No. 9298 of 2019 3. As the matter stood thus, on 12.12.2018, a notice was issued to the petitioner stating that the Assistant Revenue Officer had received a communication from the officials of the Revenue Department dated 05.12.2018 in which it was stated that there were no records in respect of Site No.2, Khata No.324/422/159 of Hagaduru village and it was therefore clear that the petitioner had obtained the plan by producing fraudulent documents. The petitioner was called upon to show cause within three days. 4. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted the documents in her possession, but the same have been rejected in the following terms: “»A§gÀºÀ” «µÀAiÀÄ: J¯ï.¦.£ÀA.38/17-18, ¢£ÁAPÀ 15/03/2018gÀ°è ©.©.JA.¦ ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÝ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. G¯ÉèÃR: (1) £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÁV vÁªÀÅ ¸À°è¹zÀ Cfð ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06/03/2018 (2) F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¸ÀA: J¯ï.¦ ¸ÀA:38/2017-18, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15/03/2018 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6356 WP No. 9298 of 2019 (3) ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÉÊmï¦üïïØ G¥ÀªÀ®AiÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:§È.¨ÉA.ªÀÄ.¥Á/ªÉʦüÃ/GªÀ/¹Dgï/409/2018-19, ¢£ÁAPÀ:05-11-2018 **** ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ²æêÀÄw. ºÉÆ£ÀߪÀÄä PÉÆA ¯ÉÃmï ¸ÀA¥ÀAUÀ¥Àà, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀAvÉ, ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.02, ©©JA¦ SÁvÉ £ÀA.324/422/159, ªÁqïð £ÀA.84gÀ ºÀUÀzÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ£É ¤«Äð¸À®Ä £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw PÉÆÃj G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀAvÉ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄwÛÃj. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀAvÉ J¯ï.¦.£ÀA.38/2017-18 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15-03- 2018 gÀAvÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀAvÉ, F ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ zÀÆgÀÄ §AzÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.02, ©©JA¦ SÁvÉ £ÀA.324/422/159, ªÁqïð £ÀA.84gÀ ºÀUÀzÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÉÊmï¦üïïØ G¥ÀªÀ®AiÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁV, G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀAvÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÉÊmï¦üïïØ G¥ÀªÀ®AiÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ »A§gÀºÀzÀAvÉ PÀbÉÃj zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ºÀUÀzÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.02, SÁvÉ £ÀA.324/422/159 ¸ÀévÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À°è zÁR¯ÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, vÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸Àj£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁV E®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, vÀªÀÄUÉ G¯ÉèÃR(2) gÀ°è ©.©.JA.¦ ¬ÄAzÀ ²æêÀÄw. ºÉÆ£ÀߪÀÄä PÉÆA ¯ÉÃmï ¸ÀA¥ÀAUÀ¥Àà, DzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6356 WP No. 9298 of 2019 J¯ï.¦.£ÀA.38/2017-18 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15-03-2018 gÀ°è ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¸À»/- ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, ©.©.JA.¦. ªÉÊmï¦üïïØ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560 066 gÀªÀjUÉ, ²æêÀÄw. ºÉÆ£ÀߪÀÄä PÉÆA ¯ÉÃmï ¸ÀA¥ÀAUÀ¥Àà, ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.02, SÁvÉ £ÀA.324/422/159 ºÀUÀzÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-66. 5. As could be seen from the above, the BBMP has come to the conclusion that the documents obtained by the petitioner were unbelievable only on the basis of the communication dated 05.11.2018 issued to them by the Revenue officials. In fact, a copy of this communication is also not furnished to the petitioner. 6. If the copy of the notice dated 12.12.2018 is perused, it is noticed that the Revenue officials have stated as follows: "CzÀgÀAvÉ, vÁªÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÁV ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÉÊmï ¦üïïØ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6356 WP No. 9298 of 2019 G¥ÀªÀ®AiÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁV CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05/12/2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀUÀzÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.02 SÁvÁ £ÀA. 324/422/159gÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À°è zÁR¯ÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ." 7. As could be seen from the above, the Revenue officials have basically stated that they did not have the documents in relation to Site No.02 and they have not stated therein that the documents produced by the petitioner were fake. 8. In my view, having regard to the fact that the BBMP had accepted the Hakkupatra and had registered the Khata and collected the tax right from 2017, it was improper on its part to cancel the plan nearly one year after it was sanctioned and that too, on the basis of a communication which was not even furnished to the petitioner. 9. The impugned endorsement is therefore quashed. 10. It is however made clear that if the Revenue Department is of the view that the petitioner had - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6356 WP No. 9298 of 2019 obtained the allotment by using improper means or that there was no allotment at all, it is open for the Revenue Department to initiate action against the petitioner. 11. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50