- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22104 WP No. 18340 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.18340 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SALMA W/O ABUBAKAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT GOWRI KALUVE, 4TH CROSS OPP: VIDYA BHARATHI SCHOOL, CHIKMAGALURU-577 101 REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY, SRI ABUBAKAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT GOWRI KALUVE, 4TH CROSS, OPP: VIDYA BHARATHI SCHOOL, CHIKMAGALURU-577 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIKMAGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY-PASS ROAD, JYOTHI NAGAR POST, CHIKMAGALURU-577 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22104 WP No. 18340 of 2024 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 VIDE ANNEXURE-A., 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 in the captioned petition is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 14.02.2024 issued by respondent No.1 wherein petitioner's request to issue katha is declined on the premise that disputed site is part and parcel of park area. 2. Heard the counsel for petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22104 WP No. 18340 of 2024 3. In light of the discussion and the material placed on record, it is evident that the refusal to issue khatha in respect of Site No.21 situated in Survey No.61 is based on an erroneous premise, which stands contradicted by the findings of a duly constituted official enquiry. The said enquiry, conducted by respondent No.1 in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P. No.7250/2023, has categorically concluded that the land in Survey No.61 does not form part of the designated park area. Furthermore, the fact that an adjacent site owner, whose property also falls within Survey No.61, has already been issued a khatha on the strength of this very report, reinforces the petitioner's contention that she is similarly situated and ought not to be treated differently. The principle of parity and equal treatment under similar circumstances mandates that the benefit extended to one party be equally extended to another, unless there exists a justifiable ground for differential treatment. In the absence of such justification, the impugned endorsement declining - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22104 WP No. 18340 of 2024 khatha to the petitioner, solely on the basis of an outdated or incorrect assumption, is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 4. For the foregoing 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, declining to issue khatha in respect of Site No.21 situated in Survey No.61, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to take cognizance of the findings recorded in the order dated 10.09.2024 bearing reference No.2024- 25/1254, wherein it is categorically concluded that the land comprised in Survey No.61 does not form part of the area earmarked as a park or open space in any sanctioned layout plan. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22104 WP No. 18340 of 2024 (iv) In light of the above, respondents are further directed to process the petitioner’s application for issuance of khatha in respect of Site No.21 situated within Survey No.61, keeping in view the findings contained in the aforementioned order and in strict compliance with the applicable legal provisions and procedural requirements. (v) The entire exercise, including verification and issuance of the khatha in favour of the petitioner, shall be completed expeditiously and in any event within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (vi) It is made clear that the direction issued herein is confined to the facts of the present case and shall not be construed as a pronouncement on the title or any other civil rights of the parties, which are left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0