- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 33612 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. H J GIRIGOWDA S/O LATE SRI JAVAREGOWDA, R/AT NO.2427, 4TH CROSS, GANDHINAGARA MANDYA TOWN-571 401 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.R. GOPALASWAMY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.M.SOMASHEKARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDYA TOWN MANDYA-571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. G.M.ANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS DATED 08.02.2017 AND DATED 28.05.2018 VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, ETC. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This Writ Petition is filed for quashing of Annexures-A and B, which read as follows – Annexures-A:- “ನಗರಸಾ ಾ ಾ ಲಯ, ಮಂqÀå ¸ÀASÉå£À¸ÀªÀÄA/PÉ.n.Dgï/638/2016-17 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 8/2/2017 -: ಂಬರಹ:- **** ೕ ೆ.ೌಡ ಆದ ಾವ! ಈ ಕ$ೇೆ ಮನ% ಸ&'( ಮಂಡ) ನಗರಸೆ *ಾ)+,ಯ ಾಂ-ನಗರದ .*ೇಶನ ಸಂ0ೆ) 132ೆ1 ಲಗಾ,ದ 40*40ಅ3 4ಾಗವನು6 78ಾಂಕ 22/8/1978ರ ೌ.9: .ಣ ಯ ಸಂ0ೆ) 290 ರಮೆ ಪ= ಚದರ3ೆ ರೂ40/-ರಂೆ ಮಂಜೂgÀÄ Aಾ3 ಅದರಂೆ BಮCತು, Eಾವ=(ದುF ಅದರಂೆ ಹಕು1 ಪತ ೊ3(ೊಡುವಂೆ ೋರುವ!ದು ಸಯGೆH. ಾವ!ಸ&'(ರುವ JಾಖLಾ=ಗಳನು6 ಪೕ&(ದುF ಸದ .*ೇಶನೆ1 ಸಂಬಂ-(ದಂೆ ಕ$ೇಯ JಾಖLಾ=ಗಳನು6 ಪೕ&(ದುF ಸದ .*ೇಶನೆ1 ಸPÁð ಆJೇಶ ಸಂ0ೆ) ೆ.ಯು.3 90 ಎಂ.ಐ.+ 84 PೆಂಗಳQರು 78ಾಂಕ 21/12/1979 ರಂೆ ಮಂಜೂರದುF ತದನಂತರ ಸಾ ಆJೇಶ ಕAಾಂಕ ವ.ನ.ಇ 132 ಎಂ.ಐ.+ 84 PೆಂಗಳQರು 78ಾಂಕ 17/01/1986 ರ ಆJೇಶದಂೆ ಪ= ಚದರ3ೆ ರೂ40/-ರೂಗಳನು6 .ಗ-ಪ3( ಅದರಂೆ BಮCತು, Eಾವ=( ಹಕು1 ಪತ ಪSೆಯುವಂೆ ಎLಾ' ಪLಾನುಭ%ಗUೆ =ಳVವUೆ .ೕಡLಾದುF ತದನಂತರ ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ*ಾ 78ಾಂಕ: 22/5/1992, 18/8/1992, ಮತು, 15/01/1993ರಂದು Xಾವ ಜ.ಕ ಪ=ಾ ಪಕಟZೆ ೊರ3( ನಗ-ತ BಮCತು, Eಾವ=( ಹಕು1 ಪತ 8ೋಂJಾ[(ೊಳV\ವಂೆ =UಸLಾದುF, ಅದರಂೆ ಾವ! .*ೇಶನದ BಮCತು, Eಾವ=(ರುವ JಾಖLಾ=ಗಳನು6 ಾಜರು ಪ3(ರುವ!7ಲ', ಇಂತಹ ಪಕರಣಗಳ ಸಂಬಂಧ*ಾ 78ಾಂಕ 28/5/2002ರ Eೌ]ಾಡUತ .Jೇ ಶ8ಾಲಯ PೆಂಗಳQರು ರವರ ಪತಸಂ0ೆ) 33/99-200/1038ರಂೆ ಅಂ=ಮ =ಳVವUೆ .ೕ3 .*ೇಶನದ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 BಮCತ,ನು6 Eಾವ=ಸರದ ಮಂಜೂ]ಾ=ಯನ6 ರದುFಪ3( ನಗರಸೆ Xಾ^-ೕನೆ1 ಪSೆಯುವಂೆ =UಸLಾರುತ,Jೆ ಎಂಬುದನು6 ತಮೆ =Uಪ3ಸುಾ, ತಮC ಮನ%ಯನು6 «Lೆ ಇಡLಾJೆ ಎಂದು =Uಯಪ3(Jೆ.=Uಯುವ!ದು. UÉ, ೕಮ=/ೕ: ೆ.ೌಡ,_` ಜವ]ೇೌಡ, ನಂ2427/4 8ೇ ಾa ಾಂ-ನಗರ ಮಂಡ). Annexures-B:- £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÁ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ, ªÀÄAqÀå CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDYA-571401. zÀÆ.¸ÀA:-08232-226749 mÁ¯ï ¦üæà £ÀA:1800-4253795 ¥sÁåPïì:08232-221617 Website:www.mandyacity.mrc.gov.in ¥Áè¹ÖPï ¤µÉâ¹zÉ. Email:itstaff ulb mandya@yahoo.co.in ¸ÀASÉå: £À¸ÀªÀÄA/¹.Dgï-430/2018-19 ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-05-2018. :»A§gÀºÀ: «µÀAiÀÄ: C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ±ÀĮ̥ÀqÉzÀÄ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. ***** ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ ²æêÀÄw/²æà ºÉZï.eÉ VjÃUËqÀ ©£ï dªÀgÉÃUËqÀ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.2427 4£Éà PÁæ¸ï, UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ, ªÀÄAqÀå DzÀ vÁªÀÅ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹ ªÀÄAqÀå ¹nAiÀÄ ¥ÀÆgï »AzÀÆ ¨ÁèPï £À (FV£À UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ) 132 SÁ° PÉÆøÀÄ eÁUÀPÉÌ ºÀPÀÄÌ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj. vÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ JAqÁgïìªÉÄAmï ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ°è w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ jf¸ÀÖgï ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé¢üãÀªÀ£ÀÄß FUÁUÀ¯Éà QªÀÄävÀÄÛ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤì¥À¯ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1964gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÉÆøÀÄeÁUÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹ vÀªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯Éà EqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ, ªÀÄAqÀå gÀªÀjUÉ, ²æêÀÄw/²æà ºÉZï eÉ VjÃUËqÀ ©£ï dªÀgÉÃUËqÀ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.2427 4£Éà PÁæ¸ï, UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ, ªÀÄAqÀå - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 2. As could be seen from the endorsement dated 08.02.2017 Annexure-A, the Mandya City Municipal Council (CMC) admits that the marginal land of 40x40ft. was resolved to be allotted to the petitioner by the decision of the Council on 22.08.1978, subject to payment of Rs.4/- per sq.mtr., though it is wrongly mentioned as Rs.40/- per sq.ft. 3. The Municipality also stated that pursuant to the Government order dated 21.12.1979, the Government had issued one more order on 17.01.1986 by which the Government had fixed a sum of Rs.40/- per sq.ft. and the petitioner was required to pay the said amount and collect the hakku pathra. 4. The CMC also seeks to contend that notices were issued to the beneficiaries in respect of such an allotment by issuing three notices dated 22.05.1992, 18.08.1992 and 15.01.1993 followed by a paper publication calling upon them to pay the amount, as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 determined by the Government and get their hakku pathras registered. 5. The CMC, however, seeks to contend that despite this the petitioner, however, has not produced documents and had not paid the amounts in order to secure a hakku pathra. 6. These facts, therefore, indicate that the Mandya Municipal Council admits that an allotment was made in favour of the petitioner, way back in the year 1978 and the Mandya City Municipal Council also seeks to contend that the amount that the petitioner was liable to pay as per the originally demanded sum of Rs.4/- per sq.mtr., but this was increased to Rs.40/- per sq. ft. in the year 1986, but the same was not paid. 7. In other words, the Municipal Council admits that it had initially made a demand for Rs.4/- per sq.mtr. at the time the decision was taken by it in the year - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 1978, but subsequently, by virtue of a Government order they had made a claim at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.ft. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that after the allotment was made to him, he has, in fact, paid the sum of Rs.596/- at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.mtr., as could be seen from the receipt that he has produced at Annexure-G. 9. A perusal of Annexure-G would indicate that the petitioner has indeed paid a sum of Rs.596/- to the then Municipality. 10. However, the CMC, in its objections, contends that it has not received this money at all. It is to be noticed here that in the notice, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, the Municipality did not contend that no money was paid. 11. The purport of Annexure-A is that the petitioner was required to pay the revised amount of Rs.40/- per - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 sq.ft. and since that was not paid, hakku pathra could not be issued. 12. It may be pertinent to state here that the petitioner after securing the decision of the Municipal Council, proceeded to seek for approval of a building plan at the hands of the Mandya Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in the year 1993 and the MUDA on 11.11.1993 accorded sanction for construction of a building. The plan that is now placed on record indicates that the plot area mentioned while seeking for approval was 4,000 sq.ft. i.e., the original land of 2,400 sq.ft. i.e., the petitioner owned and the additional extent of 1,600 (40x40) which was allotted to him by the Council in the year 1978. 13. It is not in dispute that pursuant to this approval, the petitioner has put up a construction and it is also not disputed that the Mandya CMC has assessed the property to tax and is collecting the tax. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 14. It may also be pertinent to state here that the petitioner in the year 2001 sought for permission to extend the first floor of his building by approaching MUDA once again and the MUDA by an order dated 05.01.2001 accorded sanction for this extension of the first floor. 15. The copy of the plan that is produced along with the Memo also indicates that even in this plan the petitioner had indicated that he was seeking for approval of the plan in respect of a site area which measured 4,000 sq.ft. (40x60 + 40x40). These facts by themselves indicate that the petitioner has been in possession of an extent of 4,000 sq.ft. i.e., his original holding by 40x60 and the additional allotment made to him in the year 1978. 16. An argument was advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Mandya CMC that MUDA had initially refused to approve the building plan on the ground that the katha that was issued by CMC was - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 only in respect of 40x60, and therefore, it would not accord sanction. 17. It is, however, not in dispute that thereafter MUDA has indeed accorded the approval by recording the fact that the petitioner possessed land measuring 4,000 sq.ft. This would basically mean that MUDA had called upon the petitioner to establish his right over the entire extent of 4,000 sq.ft. and on his furnishing the documents, MUDA was satisfied that he owned 4,000 sq.ft. and approved the building plan. 18. In the light of the above fact, the argument of the Municipal Council that the money was not paid to the petitioner by the petitioner as per the Council decision of the year 1979 or the Government order dated 17.01.1986 would be untenable. 19. It is to be stated here that if the petitioner had not complied with the decision of the Council to pay a - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 sum of Rs.4/- per sq.mtr., the Council had to necessarily take action to recover the said amount. There is nothing produced on record to indicate that notices were issued by the Municipal Council making a demand for payment of the price of the marginal land at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.mtr. 20. The further argument that there was a revision of the said sum under Government order dated 17.01.1986 and that was also not adhered to cannot also be accepted, fundamentally because the decision was to allot the marginal land of 40x40 in the year 1979 and it is clear that the Municipal Council can only make a demand in respect of the prices that was prevailing as on 1979. The Municipality cannot obviously make a demand on the basis of a Government order which came into existence seven years thereafter and demand a higher price. 21. The argument that is also sought to be advanced by the counsel for the CMC is that the first decision of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 the Council had been stayed and ultimately the matter was resolved only in the year 1986 when the Government decided to impose the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.ft. 22. However, there is nothing placed on record to indicate that the first decision of imposing Rs.4/- per sq.mtr. was stayed. 23. The argument that is sought to be advanced is that the decision of the Municipal Council to dispose of the sites at Rs.4/- per sq.mtr. has been the subject matter and the Government had initially stayed the decision of the Municipal Council and the decision to allot the sites at Rs.4/- per sq.mtr. and ultimately the Government passed an order on 17.01.1986 fixing the price for various layouts mentioned therein and in respect of the layouts which were not mentioned, the Government had fixed the rate for Rs.40/- per sq.ft. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 24. The said Government order which is produced as Annexure-R1 contains a clause which reads as follows- “11. GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ jmï CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CAwªÀÄ wêÀiÁð£À §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄAqÀå £ÀUÀgÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¯Éà ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.” 25. As could be seen from the above, the Government had passed the order on 17.01.1986 making it clear that the Mandya Municipal Council would take a decision regarding disposal of the sites after the disposal of the pending Writ Petition in which an interim order had been granted. This would obviously mean that the prices that were determined by the Government on 17.01.1986 was in relation to the sites which were yet to be allotted by the Mandya Municipal Council. 26. This order cannot obviously be made applicable to the site which had already been allotted seven (7) - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 years prior to the order. If it was the intention of the Government that the Municipal Council would recover the balance from the allottees, who had already got the benefit of allotment and the Government order would have specifically stated so. Since the Government order only refers to disposal of sites after the Government order has been issued, it is obvious that this Government order would also be not applicable to the petitioner. 27. In the light of the fact that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.4/- per sq.mtr. as Annexure-G and taking into consideration that he was permitted to construct a building and also an extension to the said building by the MUDA, which also considered his holding to be inclusive of the marginal land that was granted, the stand of the Mandya Municipal Council that the petitioner was required to pay the rate at Rs.40/- per sq.ft. would be wholly untenable. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 28. It is also to be noticed here that if it was the case of the Mandya Municipal Council that was entitled to recover entire sums from the petitioner, who was conferred with the benefit of the allotment in the year 1978, necessarily a notice calling upon him to pay the amount should have been made immediately after the Government order dated 17.01.1986. It has been merely stated in the impugned endorsement and in the objections that notices were issued, but these notices have not been placed on record. 29. The fact that the Municipal Council accepted the sanction of plan by MUDA not once, but twice, also indicates that the Municipal Council was very much aware that the petitioner was constructing the building to a total extent of 4,000 sq.ft. and yet the Mandya Municipal Council chose to sleep over the matter. 30. It is to be kept in mind that an allotment in the year 1978 has remained inconclusive despite the lapse of - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 nearly 36 years and that too after MUDA has collected Rs.590/- in the year 1978 and has allowed the petitioner to complete the construction about 20 years ago. 31. In my view, this is a clear attempt by the Mandya Municipal Council to harass the petitioner and extract some money from him one way or the other without there being any valid basis for the claim. 32. I am, therefore, of the view that it would be appropriate to issue a direction to the Mandya Municipal Council to issue an ‘hakku patra’ in respect of the property allotted to the petitioner vide by the Council decision dated 22.08.1978 in respect of property measuring 40x40 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 33. Since the Municipal Council has unnecessarily harassed the petitioner in the matter of issuance of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:1400 WP No. 33612 of 2018 hakku pathra and in registration of the same, it would also be necessary to impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Mandya Municipal Council. 34. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned endorsements are quashed. 35. The Office is directed to return the original katha file after keeping a copy of the same in the said file. 36. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15