ORDER :

The petitioners who are owners of the property having purchased the same through sale deeds executed on 23.09.2006 have filed the present writ petitions seeking an appropriate writ to quash the impugned endorsements at Annexures-E, E1 and E2 issued by respondent No.1 and to consequently set aside the inquiry notice at Annexure-B.

2. The petitioners had sought for effecting katha of the property in their names by virtue of registered sale deeds. The same, however, had not been considered by the respondent authorities by virtue of endorsement at Annexure-E. The endorsement at Annexure-E is to the effect that the application of the petitioners cannot be considered in light of the observations made by the Divisional Commissioner in the order dated 25.10.1999 and as per which there was no provision to alienate the property [Corrected vide Court Order dated 26.04.2019]. Learned senior counsel Shri N. Devdas appearing on behalf of the petitioners state that the vendors of the petitioners on an earlier occasion had challenged the endorsement canceling the building license in W.P.Nos. 12222-224/2010 and this Court by order dated 13.06.2013, had set aside the impugned orders dated 06.03.2010 and 27.03.2010 reserving liberty to the respondent authorities to take action in accordance with law.

3. The petitioners state that after disposal of the said writ petitions, representations at AnnexuresM1 to M3 have been submitted to the authority seeking for effecting katha and necessary entries in the records of the municipal authorities taking note of the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners.

4. As no action was taken pursuant to the representations made by the petitioners and writ petition Nos.52797-801/2015 was filed seeking for an appropriate direction to consider the representations to issue katha and enter the names of the petitioners in the municipal records. This Court by order dated 11.06.2018 allowed the said writ petitions and directed the Municipal Commissioner to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass orders in terms of the registered sale deeds dated 23.09.2006. The petitioners state that pursuant to the directions passed in the said petitions, notice came to be issued at Annexure-B calling upon the petitioners to produce certain documents with certain observations in the said notice calling for an explanation as regards the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 25.10.1999 [Corrected vide Court Order dated 26.04.2019].

5. The petitioners having approached the authority for consideration of their representations and not having been responded to positively and had issued the endorsements impugned herein at Annexures-E, E1 and E2, have filed the present writ petitions.

6. The petitioners state that the order dated 25.10.1999 at Annexure-G was passed in a revision petition preferred under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for short) against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga dated 16.04.1998 holding that the properties bearing Nos.2414, 2415, 2416, 2417 and 2418 belonged to Sri Marappa Gounder, Sri T. Surappa Gounder and legal representatives of Sri Tanyasi Gounder. The revision petitions preferred by the Town Municipality, Hiriyur, the Karnataka Pradesh Agricultural Society, Hiriyur and the Poura Hitharakshana Samithi (R), Hiriyur, came to be dismissed upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.04.1998. While disposing of the said revision petitions, it was noticed that the representative suit numbered as Misc.No.1/1992 before the District Judge, Chitradurga regarding the same subject matter had come to be dismissed and the same was affirmed in C.R.P. No.4126/1992. It was also observed that in the event of any claim by the Municipal Authorities being rejected in terms of Section 82 of the Act, the only remedy that was available is by way of Civil Suit under Section 82(2) of the KMC Act.

7. It is an undisputed fact that subseq