- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 46734 OF 2016 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 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 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401 4. MANDYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 4TH CROSS ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA - 571 401. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (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) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016 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. 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 is aggrieved by the refusal of the City Municipal Council, Mandya, (for short, ‘the CMC’) for registering the Khata in respect of the property which has been purchased by the petitioner. 2. The impugned endorsement reads as follows: “£ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÁ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀå ¸ÀASÉå;£À¸ÀªÀÄA/¤.±Á/¹.Dgï/162/15-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28/12/2015 -: »A§gÀºÀ :- ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:1/15/15 gÀAzÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹ ªÀÄAqÀå vÁ॥ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ॥ ªÀÄAqÀå UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA 199/3¹-¦2 gÀ°è 0.05-00 UÀÄAmÉ( (160*35 Cr ) ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ C£ÀåPÁæAvÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ MlÄÖ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016 «¹ÛÃtðzÀ°è vÁªÀÅ j॥ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ 90*35 Cr ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ D©üªÀÈ¢Þ ±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ SÁvÁ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²°¹zÀÄÝ, F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ªÀÄAqÀå £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ «£Áå¸À £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV «¨sÀd£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ «¨sÀd£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ «£Áå¸À £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÉÆzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ªÀÄAqÀå £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÁzÀå«®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÉƸÀzÁV D¹Û zÁR¯ÁäqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯É EqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¸À»/- ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉÃ, ªÀÄAqÀå UÉ, ²æêÀÄw/²æà ªÀ¤ÃµÁ.J.eÉÊ£ï PÉÆA Dgï ¥Àæ¢Ã¥ï, ºÀ¼Éà JA.¹ gÀ¸ÉÛ CeÁzï £ÀUÀgÀ, ªÀÄAqÀå” 3. As could be seen from the above, the CMC admits that 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’. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016 4. According to the CMC, since the property was not sub- divided in accordance with the approval of the Planning Authority, the CMC cannot register the Khata. 5. The land in question is the land bearing Sy.No.199/3C- P2, which was permitted to be used for non- agricultural 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: “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÁåAqï gÉ«£Àå C¢¤AiÀĪÀÄ 64£Éà ¸ÉPÀë£ï 90(2)gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉ F PɼÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä PÉÊUÁjPÉ ¸Áܦ¸ÀĪÀÄ §UÉÎ ²æêÀÄw. £ÀÆgÉéAiÀĪÀÄä gÀªÀjUÉ F PɼÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1. CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÁªÀiË®å JPÀgÉ 1PÉÌ 1.400 gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¼ÀvÉ ¦ÃdÄ 25 gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 2. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ £ÀA.Dgï.1.90 ¢:22.10.68PÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÖ bÁ¥Á PÁUÀzÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016 3. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖªÁUÀ ¨ÁdÄzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ C£Á£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀzÀAvÉ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀlÖ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 4. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖªÁUÀ mË£ï ¥Áè£ï PÁ£ÀƤUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 5. d«Ää£À ºÀPÀÄÌ ¨sÁzsÀåvÉUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ®Æè CrاgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 6. ¯ÉÃOmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉlgïªÉÄAmï ¦üÃAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥Á°n ªÀÄAqÀå UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄvÀUÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 7. F eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß .. PÀlÖ®Ä ªÀiÁvÀæ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 8. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÁ¸ÀzÀªÀÄ£É PÀlÄÖªÀAvÉ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖzÀjAzÀ ¯Éʸɣïì£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ. 9. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä d«Ää£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ EAzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 30 CrUÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ CUÀ® ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ M¦à¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 10. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ PÀlÄÖªÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ©°ØAUï ¨ÉʯÁ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ¸À¨ï mÁåPÀμÀ£ÀÄß ©qÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ. UÁæªÀÄ : ªÀÄAqÀå ºÉÆç½ : PÀ¸À¨Á vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ : ªÀÄAqÀå ¸À:£ÀA : 19:1J «¹ÛÃtð : 160:36 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ : 1-00 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016 PÀAzÁAiÀĪÀ£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 vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¸À»/- «±ÉõÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè. 1. EzÀgÀ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀ¤UÉ gÀªÁ¤¹zÉ. 2. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ £ÀPÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ §UÉÎ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀjUÉ gÀªÀ¤¹zÉ. 3. EzÉ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw CzsÀåPÀëjUÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ” 6. As could be seen from the above, the Deputy Commissioner did not impose any condition that the applicant therein was required to obtain the approval of the Planning Authority. 7. 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016 and consequently, rejected the claim for bifurcation of the Khata. 8. 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. 9. 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 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016 time, the applicants therein cannot claim for registration of the Khata. 10. 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. 11. 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. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5307 WP No. 46734 of 2016 12. If the property as a whole is already bifurcated and the division is recognized in respect of one portion, it 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. 13. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. 14. 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. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34