- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22103 WP No. 16709 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.16709 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. H G SUNANDAMMA W/O LATE SADANANDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT BESIDE ANJANEYA TEMPLE VIJAYAPURA,CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101 REPRESENTED BY HER SON AND GPA HOLDER SRI C.S. HEMANTHA KUMARA S/O LATE SADANANDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT BESIDE ANJANEYA TEMPLE VIJAYAPURA,CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101. 2. SRI C.S. HEMANTHA KUMARA S/O LATE SADANANDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT BESIDE ANJANEYA TEMPLE VIJAYAPURA,CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101. 3. SMT. C.S. PALLAVI D/O LATE SADANANDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT BESIDE ANJANEYA TEMPLE, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALURU-577 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22103 WP No. 16709 of 2024 AND: 1. THE CHIKMAGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY-PASS ROAD, JYOTHINAGAR POST, CHIKMAGALURU-577 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHIKMAGALULRU CITY, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN MC:CKM/611/2023-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners in the captioned petition is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 14.02.2024 issued by respondent No.1 wherein petitioners' - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22103 WP No. 16709 of 2024 request to issue katha is declined on the premise that disputed site is part and parcel of park area. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, by way of a memo, placed on record a copy of the order passed by respondent No.1 in a comparable matter, wherein a similarly situated site was subjected to an enquiry pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.7250/2023. Relying on the said order dated 10.09.2024 bearing No.2024-25/1254, the petitioners contend that respondent No.1 has categorically held, after conducting a detailed enquiry, that the site in question does not form part of the designated park area. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the said order, a khatha has been issued in favour of the owner of an adjoining site. 3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, including the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22103 WP No. 16709 of 2024 respondent No.1, which is annexed to the memo dated 16.04.2025. In the considered view of this Court, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portion of the said order, which reads as follows: "ಆದಂದ ಾಂಕ:30-10-2009 ರ ಾ ಾರದ ಸೆಯ ಣಯದಂೆ ಸ.ನಂ. 61 ರ ವಸ ಬಾವೆಯನ ಉ ಾ!ನವನದ "ಾಗದ $ೇಶನಗಳಾ() *ಾೆ +ಾ, ಸದ $ೇಶನಗಳ ಕಟ.ಡ 01ರುವ3ದನು( ೆರವ34ೊ6ಸುವ ಬ4ೆ7 8ಾಗೂ ಸದ *ಾೆಗಳನು( ರದು4ೊ6ಸುವಂೆ ಣ91 ಸ:6ೕಯ ಸಂ;ೆ:ಗ64ೆ ಕಳ<=1ರುವ ಪ;ಾ?ವೆಯಂೆ ಈ4ಾಗAೇ ಉ ಾ!ನವನದ "ಾಗದ +ಾಣ$ಾ)ರುವ ಕಟ.ಡ, *ಾೆಗಳ ಬ4ೆ7 ಪBೕ1ೊಂಡು 8ಾಗೂ ಪB(ತ Bೕಮ ೕEಾ ಾ9F ರವರ $ೇಶನವ3 ಉ ಾ!ನವನದ ಪ ೇಶದ ಬರ ೇ ಇರುವ3ದಂದ, ಾHಯನIಯ ಕಮವ=ಸಬಹು ಾ) ೆ ಎಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ 6ಸAಾ) ೆ." 4. The petitioners claim to be the lawful owners of Site No.20, which is situated in Survey No.61. This assertion is substantiated by the schedule of property reflected in the title documents produced by the petitioners and placed on record as Annexure- B. The material placed on record further indicates that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22103 WP No. 16709 of 2024 a detailed enquiry was conducted by respondent No.1 pursuant to directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.7250/2023. In the said proceedings, respondent No.1 has categorically concluded that the land bearing Survey No.61 does not form part of the designated park area. The petitioners assert, and rightly so, that the adjacent site owner situated within the same survey number has already been issued a khatha based on the said enquiry report and findings recorded therein. In view of the said development, the petitioners, being similarly placed, are entitled to be extended the same treatment. The refusal to issue khatha on the ground that the site forms part of the park area is, therefore, rendered unsustainable in light of the official findings now on record. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.1 declining to grant khatha to the petitioners is liable to be quashed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22103 WP No. 16709 of 2024 5. For the forgoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 14.02.2024 issued by respondent No.1, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A, is quashed and set aside. (iii) Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to take due note of the findings recorded in the order dated 10.09.2024, bearing No.2024-25/1254, which categorically declares that Survey No.61 does not form part of the designated park area. (iv) In light of the above, respondents are directed to process the petitioners’ request and issue khatha in respect of Site No.20 situated in Survey No.61, strictly in accordance with law. (v) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6