- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8612 WP No. 52833 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 52833 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. U S VARUN S/O LATE U.N. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. U.S.MEGHA D/O LATE U.N. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O SOWMYA NILAYA SIDDEGOWDA LAYOUT, BEHIND KHB COLONY, NANJANGUD TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT-571301 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PREREET JAIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CITY MUNICIPALITY NANJANGUD TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT-571301 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJI., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY DATED 26.12.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8612 WP No. 52833 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The admitted facts for the present case are as follows: 2. The father of the petitioners had purchased site No.33 measuring 30’ X 40’ in a layout situate behind Kabini Colony, Nanjangud town, under a registered Sale Deed and he had also secured an approval of plan for construction of a dwelling unit. 3. However, the father of the petitioners constructed a house in the vacant site i.e., site No.24 which incidentally belonged to Municipality. In other words, the father of the petitioners constructed a house in a site which belonged to Municipality instead of constructing in his site. 4. It is, however, the case of the petitioners that their father and the Municipality recognized this mistake and both of them agreed to exchange their - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8612 WP No. 52833 of 2017 respective properties. The father of the petitioners agreed to convey site No.33 which he owned and the Municipality agreed to convey the property i.e., site No.24, on which, the father of the petitioner had constructed a house. 5. The Municipality, in fact, passed a resolution on 08.08.1995 to this effect and though no formal Deed of Conveyance was executed by the Municipality, the khatha was registered in the name of the father of the petitioner in respect of site No.24. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Municipality thereafter proceeded to auction site that his father had agreed to exchange i.e., site No.33 and in the auction, petitioners’ father was the successful bidder and he had remitted Rs.53,750/- towards sale consideration and thereafter, the Administrator also confirmed the auction and accepted his bid on 03.02.1996. The petitioners therefore submit that their father got a site No.24 on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8612 WP No. 52833 of 2017 which he had constructed the house (which belonged to Municipality) by way of exchange and he also became the owner of site No.33, which was originally owned by him (which was exchanged to Municipality), in the auction. 7. It is their case that the Municipality, however, refused to execute the Deed of Conveyance and also register Khatha as per the impugned order/endorsement dated 26.12.2015 and hence, they were constrained to approach this Court. 8. The Municipality has filed its objections, in which, it admits that the father of the petitioners had put up his house in the property which belonged to the Municipality i.e., site No.24 and the Municipality had, in fact, passed a resolution for exchange of sites. It is also admitted in the objection that the property which the petitioners’ father had exchanged i.e., site No.33 was also sold in public auction and the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8612 WP No. 52833 of 2017 petitioners’ father was the highest bidder and his bid was accepted by the Administrator. 9. In light of these admitted facts, the Municipality would be morally and legally bound to accept the exchange Deed from the petitioners by virtue of its resolution dated 08.08.1995 and at the same time, since it has conducted a public auction and had also collected a sum of Rs.53,750/- from the petitioners’ father towards sale consideration, the Municipality is required to convey site No.33 to the petitioners. 10. However, learned counsel for the Municipality submits that this process cannot be adopted now since the permission under Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for brevity, referred to as “the Act”) was not obtained by the Municipality. 11. In my view, this argument of the Municipality, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be accepted. The Municipality having accepted for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8612 WP No. 52833 of 2017 exchange of sites and after having registered the khatha in respect of exchanged site No.24 in the name of the petitioners’ father, is bound to accept the execution of an exchange Deed and only if this is done, will the Municipality secure title over site No.33 of the petitioners’ father. 12. It is to be stated here that if the Municipality does not accept the title through the exchange Deed from the petitioners, in law, the Municipality will not have any title over site No.33 which the petitioners’ father had owned and had agreed to exchange. 13. Consequently, even if a Sale Deed is not executed pursuant to the auction, the title of the property, in law, would remain with the petitioners’ father. 14. Given this scenario, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioners to execute the exchange Deed in favour of the Municipality and thereby convey site No.33 and at the same time, the Municipality shall also execute a Sale Deed in respect - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8612 WP No. 52833 of 2017 of site No.33 which it had sold pursuant to public auction. 15. In the facts of this case, the permission of the Government under Section 72(2) of the Act would not be necessary, fundamentally because, if the Municipality had permitted construction of a house on the property owned by it i.e., on site No.24 and had permitted the petitioners to reside therein for nearly 30 years and had also proceeded to auction the property over which it had no title i.e., site No.33 and retained the bid money deposited by the petitioners’ father, the Municipality would have to, in fact, face the consequences of reimbursing the market value of the site if it wants to retain the site. 16. In the result, the impugned order/endorsement is set aside. The petitioners are directed to execute the exchange Deed in favour of the Municipality and thereby convey site No.33 and at the same time, the Municipality shall also execute a Sale Deed in favour - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8612 WP No. 52833 of 2017 of the petitioners in respect of site No.33, which it had sold pursuant to public auction to the petitioners’ father within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 17. The petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72