- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20961 WP No. 16032 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.16032 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O GANGABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O CHANNAMANA PALYA, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH K R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, 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, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20961 WP No. 16032 of 2025 MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. Y.D. SHIVA SHANKARA ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2000 BEARING NO. NA. E.HAS. 99 PASSED BY THE R1 ANNEXURE -E INSO 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 petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser through the original Allottee under Ashraya Scheme implemented in 1992, is before this Court assailing the order dated 10.04.2000 bearing No.Na.E:HAS.99 passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-E insofar as it relates to the schedule property. 2. The petitioner is asserting title over the schedule property based on the registered sale deed dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20961 WP No. 16032 of 2025 08.02.2006 obtained from the erstwhile Allottee. The petitioner is tracing his title through his vendor, who has acquired the property based on the allotment made by the Authority. The petitioner asserts that respondent No.4 has issued Grant Certificate in favour of the petitioner's vendor and the petitioner's vendor has paid upset price in respect of the schedule property on 18.06.1992. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the adverse orders, nor were the proceedings - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20961 WP No. 16032 of 2025 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 petitioner 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 petitioner are sought to be nullified on the singular ground that the vendor of the petitioner 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20961 WP No. 16032 of 2025 allottee or to the petitioner, who is a bona fide subsequent purchaser. 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 petitioner, 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.34, Khaneshumari No. 34/4883/5327, situated at Jyothinagara Badavane, Magadi Town, Magadi, Ramanagara - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20961 WP No. 16032 of 2025 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 schedule property in favour of the petitioner, 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 NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16