IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1594 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
SRI. KANDAN N SON OF LATE SRI N NATESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45, 2ND FLOOR 2ND CROSS, ANJANAPPA GARDEN MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-560018.
... APPELLANT (BY SMT. G.K SREEVIDYA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002.
2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER JAGAJEEVAN RAM NAGAR RANGE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, GOODS SHED ROAD BENGALURU-560053.
... RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2 ARE SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.33656/2014 DATED 31/10/2014.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.33656 of 2014, by which the petition was rejected, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.
2. The plea of the appellant is that the application made by him for grant of katha has not been properly considered by the respondents. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that since the property purchased by the petitioner is a portion of large extent of land, the same would tantamount to sub-division requiring sanction under Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (for short ‘the Act’).
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the only plea of the appellant is to consider his application for change of katha. That pursuant to the same certain documents are sought for and the same have been produced. Even then, the change of katha has not been done.
4. The respondents are served. We are of the view, that proper relief is called for. Irrespective of the fact whether the property of the appellant demands a sub- division of the plot in terms of Section 17 of the Act or not, it is a matter to be considered by the authorities concerned. It is only just and necessary that the respondents consider the plea of the appellant for change of katha. That if there are any objections, the respondents are at liberty to raise the same. Hence, with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the appellant for change of katha in accordance with law, the appeal is disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms