- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24618 WP No. 17016 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 17016 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NEAR JODI WATER TANK, JYOTHI NAGARA, WARD NO-15, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL K.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESH K.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24618 WP No. 17016 of 2025 DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VISWESHWARAIAH TOWERS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 159. 4. THE COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. Y.D. SHIVA SHANKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2000 BEARING NO. NA E HAS 99 PASSED BY THE R-1 ANX-E IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED 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, who are the subsequent purchasers through the original Allottee under Ashraya Scheme implemented in 1992, are before this Court assailing the order dated 10.04.2000 bearing No.Na.E:HAS.99 passed by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24618 WP No. 17016 of 2025 respondent No.4 as per Annexure-E insofar as it relates to the schedule property. 2. The petitioners are asserting title over the schedule property based on the registered sale deed dated 28.03.2007 obtained from the erstwhile Allottee's son. The petitioners are tracing their title through their vendor's mother, who has acquired the property based on the allotment made by the Authority. The petitioners asserts that respondent No.4 has issued Grant Certificate in favour of mother of petitioners' vendor who has paid upset price in respect of the schedule property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of the relief sought, places reliance on the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a connected matter arising out of a common order passed by the respondent-authorities. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench, after a detailed examination of the factual background and legal implications, found that the impugned orders in those cases were passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The Co- ordinate Bench observed that the affected parties had not been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24618 WP No. 17016 of 2025 afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the adverse orders, nor were the proceedings supported by cogent reasoning or material evidence. As a result, the Co-ordinate Bench allowed the writ petitions in those cases, quashing the impugned orders and reserving liberty to the respondent- authorities to initiate fresh proceedings, if so advised, by adhering strictly to the requirements of law and affording a reasonable opportunity to all concerned. 4. In the present case as well, a similar grievance is raised. The petitioners claims to have acquired valid title to the schedule property through a registered sale deed, pursuant to an allotment originally made by the competent authority. However, by the impugned order dated 10.04.2000, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E, the title and possession of the petitioners are sought to be nullified on the singular ground that the vendor of the petitioners was allegedly ineligible to obtain the original allotment. A plain reading of the impugned order reveals that it is not preceded by any meaningful enquiry nor does it reflect that any notice was issued either to the original allottee or to the petitioners, who are a bona fide - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24618 WP No. 17016 of 2025 subsequent purchasers. The findings recorded therein are based on presumptive assertions and are not supported by any documentary material. In the absence of compliance with the minimum standards of procedural fairness, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, at least insofar as it pertains to the schedule property owned by the petitioners, is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. 5. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 10.04.2000 bearing No.Na.E:HAS.99, passed by respondent No.1 and produced at Annexure-E, is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to Site No.137, Khaneshumari No.141/4989/137, situated at Jyothinagara Badavane, Magadi Town, Magadi, Ramanagara District, measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 30 feet, totally measuring 900 sq. ft. (iii) The respondent-authorities are directed to issue the e-Katha in respect of the above - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24618 WP No. 17016 of 2025 schedule property in favour of the petitioners, in accordance with law and subject to satisfaction of all procedural and statutory requirements. (iv) It is clarified that such restoration and issuance of e-Katha shall be subject to the outcome of any proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents, in accordance with law. (v) In the event the respondents propose to initiate any such proceedings, the same shall be commenced within a reasonable time and after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, including the petitioner herein. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20