- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103089 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ZEENATH AMAN W/O. ABDUL KHADAR JILANI KHUDDANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. ABDUL KHADAR JILANI S/O. PEERASAB KHUDDANNAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE, PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/O. NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, ANNIGERI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VINUTHA GANGAVATHI, D/O. G. GANESH BHAT #299, SHREE GANESH, 5TH CROSS, M.C. COLONY, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 2. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, KALABURGI DIVISION, KALABURGI. 3. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, HOSAPETE MUNICIPALITY, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 4. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O. RAMANNA, AGE: 71, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. 15TH WARD, CHNITAMANI MATH AREA, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 5. P.R. MRUTHYANJAYA S/O. RAMAPPA M. PUJAR AGE: 48, OCC: DONT KNOW, R/O. 35TH WARD, SANDUR ROAD, OPP. A.C. RESIDENCY, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 6. SMT. VIMALA DEVI W/O. VIKRAM, AGE: 42, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. JALI LINE AREA, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R2; SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R4-R6 DISPENSED WITH V/O/D 7/2/2024) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR IN THE FORM OF DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13/05/2021 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.AM:KAM/PRA.AA.KA/PURASABHE/APPEAL/15/2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. To issue writ of certiorari or any other order or in the form of direction to quash the order dated 13/05/2021 passed by Respondent No.2 Regional commissioner in proceedings bearing No.am:Kam/Pra.Aa.Ka/Purasabhe/Appeal/15/2019 -20 vide Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 ii. Pass any other order under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The brief facts of the case are; 2.1. The petitioners claim to be absolute owners in possession of residential property bearing old Door No.89-103 having its old assessment No.90-100 and New door No.52 and assessment No.54, situated in the 15th ward of Hospete City of Bellary District. 2.2. The petitioners claim that the property originally belonged to the family of one Laxmidevi, W/o.Pandurang and her name came to be entered into the property register of the then Amaravati Municipality under door No.89/203, having assessment No.90-100. Subsequently, the property was mutated in the name of her son Ramanna and thereafter in the name of his wife Hanumakka. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 2.3. In the meanwhile, Amaravati Municipality was renamed as Hosapete Municipality, and a new door number and assessment number were given to the property as door No.52 and assessment No.54. 2.4. The said Hanumakka is stated to have sold the property to respondent No.5 - Mrutyunjaya respondent No.5, under a registered sale deed 05/04/2016. Subsequently, respondent No.5 Mrutyunjaya sold the property to respondent No.6 – Vimaladevi under the sale deed dated 17/03/2017. Respondent No.6 Vimaladevi, sold the aforesaid property in two portions — the southern half portion to petitioner No.1 and northern half portion to Petitionber No.2. Their names were entered into the tax register, and they have been paying taxes. 2.5. It is at this stage that respondent No.1 - Smt.Vinutha Gangavathi, claims that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 property belongs to her family, and her name is required to be entered into the property register, claiming that the property earlier belonged to her grandfather and that her grandfather was owner of the land in Survey No.259-C, measuring 22x26 square yards and as such, sought for rectification of the entries made in the name of the petitioners and adding the name of respondent No.1 by filing a Revision Petition before the Regional Commissioner under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. 2.6. The Regional Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 13/05/2021, taking into account the encumbrance certificate which has been produced by respondent No.1 from 01/01/1947 to 07/02/2019, not indicating any transaction in respect of the aforesaid property, came to the conclusion that there is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 no sale which has been effected by the grandfather of respondent No.1 and thereafter directed the entry of the name of respondent No.1 in respect of Survey No.259-C measuring 26x22 Sq.Yards and reserved liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Submission of Sri.Dayanand Bandi, learned counsel for the petitioners is that; 3.1. From the year 1988, the names of the predecessors of the petitioners have been found on the records of the Amaravati Municipality as indicated above. The documents which have been produced by the petitioners have not been looked into. It is only on the basis of the encumbrance certificate not reflecting the transaction in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 favor of the petitioner’s predecessors that the impugned order has been passed. 3.2. Secondly he submits that, essentially, if at all there are any disputes, those disputes are civil in nature, the claim being made by respondent No.1 as regards ownership of the property. The documents reflecting the ownership of the petitioners, respondent No.2, the Regional Commissioner, ought to have relegated respondent No.1 to a Civil Court and not to have caused the entries of respondent No.1 in the records. 3.3. Lastly, he submits that the Regional Commissioner is not the revisional authority under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘the Act of 1964’, for short) and it is the Director of Municipal Administration who is the revisional authority, and as such, the Regional Commissioner could - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 not have exercised any revisional powers in respect of the revision petition filed by respondent No.1. 3.4. On the basis of the above, he submits that the petition is required to be allowed. 4. Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would submit that the property in question, measuring 26 x 22 yards, is the ancestral property of respondent No.1. No transaction has occurred in respect of the said property, as evidenced by the encumbrance certificate, which has been rightly taken into consideration by the Regional Commissioner. The sale deeds of the petitioners not being reflected in the encumbrance certificate as regards the aforesaid property, the Regional Commissioner has rightly passed the order. If at all the petitioners were to assert the title of the property, they are required to approach the Civil - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 Court seeking necessary relief, and the above petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard Sri.Dayanand M. Bandi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri. V. S. Kalsurmath, learned AGA for respondent No.2 and Sri.Shivaraj Balloli, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the papers. 6. The points that would arise for consideration are: 6.1. Whether the Regional Commissioner would have revisional powers under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964? 6.2. Whether the Regional Commissioner could have considered the encumbrance certificate produced by respondent No.1, indicating no encumbrance in respect of Survey No.259-C, to come to a conclusion that there were no transactions as regards the residential property claimed by the petitioners? 6.3. What order? 7. I answer the above points as under: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 8. Answer to point No.(i): Whether the Regional Commissioner would have revisional powers under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964? 8.1. Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 322. Revision. (1) The Director of Municipal Administration may call for and examine the record of any proceedings including orders of assessment and revision of assessment under this Act of any subordinate officer, and after such enquiry as is deemed fit, if he is satisfied that the order of the subordinate officer is contrary to law and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, pass such orders thereon as he deems just. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), the Director of Municipal Administration may call for and examine the records of any proceedings of the municipal council including proceedings as appellate authority and if satisfied that any order in such proceedings is contrary to law or is prejudicial to the interests of the Municipal area, pass such orders as he deems (3) No order under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be made to the prejudice of any party unless he has had an opportunity of being heard. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 8.2. A perusal of the above provision indicates that it is the Director of Municipal Administration who has the revisional powers, subsequent to the amendment which has been brought into effect from 20.08.2003, replacing the word "Commissioner" with "Director of Municipal Administration." 8.3. Though the Regional Commissioner could be said to have revisional powers until 20.08.2003, post the amendment, which has been effected, it is the Director of Municipal Administration who is conferred with the revisional powers. 8.4. Thus, it is rather shocking that the second respondent - Regional Commissioner, has exercised revisional powers under Section 322 of the Act of 1964, when no such revisional powers are vested with the said Regional Commissioner. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 8.5. In that view of the matter, I answer point number (1) by holding that the Regional Commissioner does not have any revisional powers under Section 322 of the Act of 1964, and it is only the Director of Municipal Administration who has such revisional powers post 20.08.2003. 8.6. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, is directed to forward a copy of this order to all the Regional Commissioners so that in future no exercise of powers under Section 322 of the Act of 1964 could be made by the Regional Commissioners. 9. Answer to point No.(ii): Whether the Regional Commissioner could have considered the encumbrance certificate produced by respondent No.1, indicating no encumbrance in respect of Survey No.259-C, to come to a conclusion that there were no transactions as regards the residential property claimed by the petitioners? - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 9.1. Essentially, the order passed by the Regional Commissioner is based on the encumbrance certificate produced by respondent No.1 in respect of Survey No.259-C. It is on that basis that the Regional Commissioner has come to a conclusion that there is no sale which has been effected in respect of the said property claimed by respondent No.1, and as such, the petitioners cannot claim any right, title, or interest in the property. 9.2. From the narration of the facts above, it is seen that, originally the property came under the Amaravati Municipality with old door No.89/103, with assessment No.90-100. Subsequently, on the said Amaravati Municipality being renamed as Hospete Municipality, a new door No.52 and Assessment No.54 came to be allotted. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 9.3. When the property is of residential nature and the claim of the petitioners was that the municipal numbers have been allotted to them and assessment made to the said numbers, the question of the Regional Commissioner referring to an encumbrance certificate relating to agricultural property would not arise. While doing so ignoring the other documents which were available on record of the assessment made of the individual house site, issuance of municipal numbers etc was not permissible. 9.4. This Court refrains from making any statement as regards the manner in which the encumbrance certificate of agricultural property has been considered by the Regional Commissioner when the property is claimed to be residential property. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 9.5. In view of the above, having come to a conclusion that the encumbrance certificate in respect of survey No.259C could not have been referred to by the Regional Commissioner as regards the residential properties towards which municipal door numbers have been allotted, I am of the considered opinion that, even on merits, the finding of the Regional Commissioner is bad in law. 10. General Directions: 10.1. Apparently, the reason for the orders passed by the Regional Commissioner same is on account the encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar's office for the agricultural property on the basis of a survey number, when the property has already been converted into residential property, and residential property numbers have been allotted to the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 land situated in the said agricultural survey number, the said property is no longer agricultural property and has been put to residential use. 10.2. It would therefore be required that, when agricultural land is converted for non- agricultural purposes, no encumberance certificate is issued in respect of the said converted land post such conversion. Necessary entries are to be made in respect of the said agricultural land in all revenue recprds that the said land has been converted for non-agricultural purposes. 10.3. It would therefore be required that, when agricultural land comes within the urban aglomeration, and land therein is assessed to municipal tax, no encumberance certificate is issued in respect such land post such assessment to municipal tax. Necessary - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 entries are to be made in respect of the said agricultural land in all revenue recprds that the said land has been assessed to municipal tax. 10.4. Any encumberance certificate issued as regards agicultural land shall only be issued as such until such conversion or assessment to municipal tax as indicated supra. 10.5. If encumberance certificate is sought for in repect of the said survey number even after conversion or assessment to municipal tax, then the encumbrance certificate issued in respect of such agricultural property by survey number ahould also reflects the municipal numbers allotted to sites formed in the said survey number, as and when so formed including renumbering thereof as the case may be. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 10.6. Needless to say, if the agricultural property continues to be agricultural property, the encumbrance certificate in respect of that agricultural property could be considered. 10.7. In that view of the matter, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, in association with the Principal Secretary of the E- governance Department, are directed to implement a system which would cater to the above situation and when an encumbrance certificate is issued as regards the agricultural property on the basis of survey number, the details of all the plots which have been formed thereon and allotted with municipal numbers, door numbers, or assessment numbers are also reflected in the said encumbrance certificate with the details of the sale deeds which have been executed in relation thereto. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 10.8. Necessary endorsements should be made in the revenue records like the RTCs, etc., indicating that the property is no longer agricultural in nature and sites have been formed. 10.9. Once sites are formed, the Sub-Registrar would have to issue encumbrance certificates only in respect of the door number or assessment number, so that multiple encumbrance certificates are not issued individually on the door number basis or the assessment number basis. 10.10. If there is change in the door number or assessment number, the encumbrance certificate should also reflect such changes in the door number and assessment number. 10.11. These are but a few observations, the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department, being - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 the person in-charge of the said Department, having better knowledge of the matter, with the assistance of other experts in the department, could well develop a more robust system to cater to the situation. 10.12. A detailed project report with a time frame for implementation to be filed within 6 weeks from today, that is, on or before 21.03.2024. 10.13. Learned AGA to inform the the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, and the Principal Secretary of the E-governance Department of the above order for necessary compliance, even though the order would be uploaded on to the Court Case Management System (CCMS). 11. Answer to Point No.3: What order? 11.1. In view of my above findings, I pass the following: - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2771 WP No. 103089 of 2021 ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Certiorari is issued, the order dated 13.05.2021 passed by respondent No.2 - Regional Commissioner, in proceeding bearing No.Kam/Pra.AA.Ka/Pursasabhe/Appeal/15/ 2019-20 vide Annexure-A is quashed. iii. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 to approach a competent Civil Court seeking for necessary relief, since it is respondent No.1 who is claiming a right over the property as regards which the names of the petitioners and their predecessors have been entered into the records from the year 1980. iv. Though the above petition is disposed of, re-list on 25.03.2025, for reporting compliance. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17