ORDER

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the impugned endorsement dated 08.01.2016 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G, whereby the request of the petitioners for change of khatha has been rejected.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the original petitioner’s mother Smt.Susheelamma had been allotted a site bearing No.463, measuring 30’X40’ situated in Halahalli, Mandya vide order dated 19.05.1979 by respondent No.2-City Municipal Council, Mandya by passing a resolution vide Annexure-A. Thereafter, the City Municipal Council has forwarded the resolution to the State Government for its approval as per Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The State Government has approved the resolution forwarded by the City Municipal Council vide Annexure-B by order dated 21.12.1979, which is produced as Annexure-B and fixed the price of Rs.3/- per square meter. Pursuant to the allotment, the allottee i.e. the mother of the petitioner was called upon to deposit Rs.334/- towards price of allotment. Accordingly, the petitioner’s mother has deposited Rs.334/- before respondent No.2/Municipality. The Government by its order dated 17.01.1986 revised the price of site. The petitioner’s mother was an illiterate lady and was working as a Sweeper in the Hospital and she had no knowledge about the paper publication or any other publication through media insofar as the revised rate of price of allotment of site. Therefore, the mother of the petitioner could not remit the revised price of allotment to the City Municipal Council, Mandya. The mother of the petitioner i.e. Smt.Susheelamma died on 26.08.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner has given representations to respondent No.2 and requested them to transfer the khatha in his name, consequent upon the death of his mother Smt. Susheelamma and also enclosing all the relevant documents for change of khatha. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement vide Annexure-F and communicated the petitioner to produce the receipt for payment of revised price. Then only, the petitioner came to know about the revised price by the Government. Thereafter, the petitioner has given a representation to respondent No.2 to permit him to make the payment of revised price and change the khatha in his name. By impugned order vide Annexure-G, respondent No.2 rejected the request of the petitioner for change of khatha. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the original petitioner died and his legal representatives of the petitioner are brought on record.

4. Sri M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.2-City Municipal Council has allotted a site No.463 measuring 30X40 feet in favour of the mother of the original petitioner by passing the resolution dated 19.05.1979. The said resolution has been approved by the State Government. Thereafter, Susheelamma paid Rs.334/-

towards price of allotment in respect of the allotment of the site. The khatha has been entered in the name of the petitioner’s mother Susheelamma. From the date of the allotment, the petitioner’s mother is paying the tax to the Municipality. He further contended that the Government has revised the price of the site allotted to the petitioner and others and same has not been intimated to the petitioner’s mother. The petitioner’s mother Susheelamma died on 26.08.1997. Since the petitioner is the legal heir of Smt. Susheelamma, he has filed an application before the City Municipal Council for change of khatha. He came to know about the Government order regarding revised price of the site only in the year 2015. Immediately, the petitioner had given number of representations to respondent No.2 stating that he is ready to pay revised price of site. The said representations are still pending before respondent No.2 and no action has been taken. Without considering the representations of the petition