- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43066 WP No. 50700 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 50700 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: A. NAGARAJU S/O. APPAJI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT GAYATHRI LAYOUT MYSORE ROAD, NAGASAMUDRA CHANNARAYAPATNA-573225 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY CHANNARAYAPATNA-573225 4. C.S. NAGARAJU S/O ANNAIAH AGED MAJOR BHAGYALAKSHMI NILAYA OPPOSITE RENUKAMBA PIPE FACTORY MYSORE ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA-573225 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43066 WP No. 50700 of 2019 5. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O NAGARAJU AGED MAJOR BHAGYALAKSHMI NILAYA, OPPOSITE RENUKAMBA PIPE FACTORY MYSORE ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA-573225 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. C.N.KESHAV MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI. HARISH D.V., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MUNICI(2)/C.R./NYA.PRA/15/2015-16 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN (RESPONDENT NO.2) AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2019 PASSED MUNICI(2)/C.R./NYA.PRA/15/2015-16 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN (RESPONDENT NO.2) VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No. Munici.(2)/C.R./Nya.Pra/15/2015-16 dated 20.08.2019 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the Khatha that stood in his name in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.87/3A, measuring 2 acres and ¼ gunta, was ordered to be cancelled. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43066 WP No. 50700 of 2019 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he purchased the land measuring 2 acres and ¼ gunta in Sy.No.87/3A situated at Nagasamudra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channarayapattana Taluk, Hassan District, in terms of a registered sale deed dated 27.10.2001. Based on the said sale deed, proceedings were initiated to enter his name in the municipal records. He further contends that the land conveyed to him formed part of the converted land owned by respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is stated that respondent No.3 issued a Khatha in his name, and subsequently, an E-Khatha was also issued. Thereafter, the petitioner constructed a commercial building on the said land after obtaining necessary sanction of a building plan from respondent No.3. Upon completion of the construction, he commenced commercial operations and is presently running a showroom therein after obtaining a valid trade licence from respondent No.3. (ii) When things stood thus, respondent Nos.4 and 5 initiated proceedings under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, for cancellation of the Khatha in the name of the petitioner on the ground that the sale deed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43066 WP No. 50700 of 2019 executed by them in favour of the petitioner was not in respect of the property which is in the petitioner’s possession. It was further alleged that the land claimed by the petitioner was not converted for non-agricultural purposes and, therefore, the Khatha effected by respondent No.3 was illegal. (iii) The petitioner appeared in the said proceedings and opposed the application, contending that the property in question lay within Ward No.8 of the Town Municipal limits of respondent No.3. He also brought to the notice of respondent No.2 that a civil suit in O.S.No.575/2015 was pending consideration. Nonetheless, respondent No.2 allowed the appeal vide order dated 20.08.2019 and directed cancellation of the Khatha standing in the petitioner’s name. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order on the premise that the land in question was not converted for non- agricultural purposes and, therefore, the Khatha standing in the name of the petitioner could not be continued. He submitted that the property lay within the municipal limits of respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43066 WP No. 50700 of 2019 No.3 and, therefore, there was no requirement for conversion of the land. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40389/2013. He therefore contended that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 filed a statement of objections inter alia contending that the petitioner had suppressed true and material facts in as much as, even before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner had already sold the property in question to one Mr. Raghavendra R in terms of a sale deed dated 03.08.2017. He therefore contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order and that, if any person was aggrieved, it was only Mr. Raghavendra R and not the petitioner. 6. It is also contended that the Khatha of the property in question was recorded in the name of the petitioner in the records of respondent No.3 and that an E-Khatha was also issued to the petitioner in the year 2016. However, it is denied - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43066 WP No. 50700 of 2019 that the petitioner had constructed a building for commercial purposes over the said property. Respondent No.3 admitted that the petitioner had obtained a commencement certificate from it on 10.12.2015, but contended that the petitioner did not produce any material to show that he had put up construction within two years from the date of issuance of the commencement certificate or that such construction was assessed to tax. It is contended that respondent No.2, after examining the merits of the case, held that the registration of the petitioner’s name in the municipal records was unauthorized, as the land in question was not converted for non-agricultural purposes. Along with the statement of objections, a copy of the sale deed dated 03.08.2017 executed by the petitioner in terms of a sale deed in favour of Mr. Raghavendra R is enclosed. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to contest the order passed by respondent No.2. He therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no right to assail the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43066 WP No. 50700 of 2019 8. While replying to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the family members of respondent No.4 had filed a suit in O.S.No.95/2015 for partition and separate possession, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as defendant No.3. He contended that in the said suit, the sale made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner was questioned, and the Trial Court, after considering the case on merits, had upheld the sale deed executed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner. He therefore contended that, in so far as the title to the property was concerned, the petitioner had successfully established that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had conveyed the property in question to him. He therefore contended that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 had no legs to stand and was liable to be set aside. 9. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Khatha of the property was made out in the name of petitioner, and subsequently, an E-Khatha was also issued. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had approached respondent No.2 contending that the property conveyed to the petitioner was not converted for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43066 WP No. 50700 of 2019 non-agricultural purposes, and therefore, registration of Khatha in the municipal records of respondent No.3 was illegal. They further contended that they had not executed any sale deed in favour of the petitioner and that they had filed a suit in O.S.No.575/2015 against the petitioner herein. 10. Respondent No.2 without considering the fact that the question whether the sale deed executed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in favour of petitioner was in respect of the property in question or not was pending consideration before the civil Court in O.S.No.575/2015, proceeded on the premise that the property claimed by the petitioner was not converted for non-agricultural purposes, and consequently directed cancellation of the Khatha standing in the petitioner's name in the records of respondent No.3. 11. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has already sold the property on 03.08.2017, much prior to filing of this writ petition, he ought to have brought the said fact to the notice of this Court. However, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the said information. If that be so, the petitioner had no locus- standi to question the order passed by respondent No.2. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43066 WP No. 50700 of 2019 12. In that view of the matter, petition lacks merits and is dismissed. 13. It is however open to any other person who is aggrieved by the impugned order to challenge the same in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49