Point of law ; Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there exists a clear provision the same cannot be taken away. It is also a trite law that the building plans are required to be dealt with in terms of the existing law. Determination of such a question cannot be postponed far less taken away. Doctrine of legitimate expectation in a case of this nature would have a role to play

ORDER :

The petitioners in this writ petition call in question an order dated 11-07-2019 by which the application given by the petitioners for change of khata is turned down by the 6th respondent/Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Periyapatna.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the son of one late P.S.Srinivasamurthy, residents of Periyapatna Town. The land in Sy.No.322/1 of Periyapatna is claimed by the petitioners to be their ancestral property which were held by the 2nd petitioner’s grandfather late P.R.Subba Rao. Khata of the said property is claimed to have been in the name of the said late P.R.Subba Rao right from 1924-25. Pursuant to the death of the grandfather of the 2nd petitioner, khata of the said property was changed in the name of the father of the petitioner. The father of the 2nd petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur seeking change of land use from agriculture to non-agricultural/residential purpose. Such change of land use was accorded to the father of the 2nd petitioner on 08.10.1997.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner’s father did not immediately put the land into any use after having changed the nature of the land from agriculture to nonagricultural purposes for close to 20 years and died intestate on 28.11.2016. The petitioners who are the surviving members of the family submitted all necessary details and got revenue records changed into their names. After getting the records changed into their names, the petitioners submitted an application to respondent No.6/Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council seeking change of khata of the subject property into their names. On receipt of the application and considering the same, the 6th respondent issued an endorsement on 11.07.2019 indicating that the subject property is also a converted land and the petitioners have to approach the 4th respondent/Assistant Director of the Department of Town and Country Planning seeking approval of the plan and then approach the 6th respondent for issuance of khata. It is this endorsement that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject writ petition.

4. Heard Sri K. Anandarama, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri M.B.Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the endorsement issued by the 6th respondent, who is the authority who has to issue khata in favour of the petitioners is contrary to law. The khata of the subject property stood in the name of grandfather of the 2nd petitioner from time immemorial and now is to be issued in the names of the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the holder of the khata who died intestate. The learned counsel would submit that the action of the 6th respondent is contrary to Section 101 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘the 1964 Act’ for short).

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri M.B.Prabhakar appearing for the 6th respondent would submit that the subject property of the petitioners comes within the planning area of the Planning Authority and once it comes within jurisdiction of the Planning Authority, no khata can be issued in terms of law unless change of land use is sought by the petitioners from the hands of the Planning Authority and would submit that the writ petition is misconceived and the petitioners have violated the orders of this Court which had directed not to put up any construction and had permitted only leveling of the land, but the petitioners have put up a compound wall in violation of the interim order. He would submit that the writ petition is to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned cou