IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.8816/2015 (LB BMP) BETWEEN M/S. GURUKIRAN ENTERPRISES, NO.57, CHANDRIKA COMPLEX, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE 560027 BY ITS PARTNER, SRI DHIRAJ HEGDE, S/O K.A. HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
(BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI A K SUBBAIAH, ADV.) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009.
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAHADEVAPURA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560043.
3. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION, ... PETITIONER MAHADEVAPURA-DIVISION, BANGALORE-560043.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K V MOHAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 - R3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE KHATHA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.21.6.2013 VIDE ANNEX-G ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. The matter has been heard on several occasions and it is apparent that the respondent-BBMP appears to be reluctant in discharging its duties.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent some how appears to be reluctant when it comes to issuing khatha or discharging its functions in so far as it relates to the petitioner. He would invite the attention of the Court to the various orders passed and various endorsements, to contend that the said earlier endorsements were also made knowingly, only with an intention of betraying the petitioner’s rights and the trust reposed by the petitioner that the BBMP would act in an unbiased manner as is expected of a statutory body. That yet again an affidavit is being filed by the Joint Commissioner deposing that the khatha has been approved but with a rider. The said affidavit reads as under:
“I, N.C.Jagadeesha, S/o Chikka Bore Gowda, aged about 59 years, working as Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Mahadevapura Division, Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-
1. I am working as Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Mahadevapura Division, Bengaluru, since from 10.06.2019, as such I am conversant with the facts of the case, hence I am swearing to this affidavit.
2. The petitioner had filed the above writ petition for mandamus directing the respondents to issue katha in favour of the petitioner in respect of property bearing 92/1, measuring 3.17 guntas situated at Vijinapura village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru.
3. I submit that I had gone through the records maintained in our office in respect of the petition schedule property, I had received the file and the report for approval for affecting katha in respect of the property bearing No.92/1, measuring 3.17 guntas situated at Vijinapura village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru, on 17.07.2019 from the ower Revenue Officers.
4. I submit that presently the revenue/RTC enters are standing in the name of the third parties. The said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.43709/2018, this Hon’ble Court was please to stayed the entries. I submit that after going through the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5476/2011 and the report of the Assistant Revenue Officer, Revenue Officer and Deputy Commissioner, I had approved the application for registration of Katha in the name of the petitioner as per the report. The Assistant Revenue Officer had issued the endorsement dated 17.07.2019 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.250/- per sq. metre as development charges as per the circular dated 1.07.2014 issued by the Commissioner.
5. I state that what is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.”
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri A.S.Ponnanna, that despite the affidavit, they have yet again issued an endorsement, whereby they have imposed a pre-condition that the khatha would be issued subject to payment of betterment charges.
4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the question of paying betterment charges would arise only when the land owner intends to develop the property and that the same cannot be made a pre-condition for issuing khatha and that the issue is no more res integra in view of the numerous rulings of this Court. He would place reliance on the decision in the case of ASIAN INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT VS BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, BANGALORE – ILR 2003 KAR 2478, wherein a co-ordinate bench of this Court has categorically held that payment of charges of development or improvement charges cannot be insisted upon as a pre-condition for issuance of khatha. The said ratio has been followed by another co-ordinate bench in the case of JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE VS BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE & OTHERS – (2010)1 KANT LJ 80. Yet again, in the case of HOTEL POONJA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, MANGALORE VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS – (2014)4 KANT LJ 463, the said ratio has been followed.
5. Be that as it may, this Court is not adjudicating the correctness of the endorsement said to have been issued. In the light of the statement and the affidavit filed, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of the relief sought for.
6. Hence, this writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent-BBMP to consider and dispose off the representation of the petitioner dated 21.06.2013 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition, taking into consideration the rulings referred to above with respect to payment of betterment charges, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of two weeks from today.
The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR