1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

WRIT PETITION NO.33873 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN

SRI P.SUHAS,

S/O G.PARAMESWARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

R/AT 1ST CROSS,

IYYANNA COLONY,

STADIUM ROAD,

CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI.B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE DIVISION,

2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,

K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA,

BANGALORE - 560 027.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,

CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

3.

THE COMMISSIONER,

CHITRADURGA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

&RESPONDENTS

2

(BY SRI.A. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN HCGP FOR R1 & R2;

SRI S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING

CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Sri B. M. Siddappa, learned counsel for petitioner

and Sri S. Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent-3

have

appeared

through

video

conferencing.

Sri A. Venkat Satyanarayan, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 has

appeared in person.

2.

It is stated that the site bearing No.61

Khata No.12110 measuring East to West 30 feet and

North

to

South

40

feet

was

allotted

to

Smt. Komalakshi wife of Gokulnath by the third

respondent. A Sale Certificate was also issued on

3

15.11.1993. Accordingly, Khata was changed in the

name of Smt. Komalakshi on 06.02.1995. It is stated

that Smt. Komalakshi sold the property in favor of one

D. Dyamaiah under a registered Sale Deed dated

28.05.1998.

The

third

respondent

issued

an

endorsement

and

ordered to

change

of Khata

in the name of D. Dyamaiah. It is said that

D. Dyamaiah executed a Will on 27.12.2002 in favor

of S. Rudramuni. On 22.05.2008, the third respondent

changed

the

Khata

in

the

name

of

S. Rudramuni. Thereafter, S. Rudramuni sold the

property in favor of petitioner under a registered Sale

Deed dated 04.06.2010.

As things stood thus, the petitioner made an

application for change of Khata and the third

respondent issued a notice on 10.12.2011 stating that

D. Dyamaiah had not paid the penalty of 20% as

ordered by the Deputy Commissioner hence, the

4

Khata cannot be changed. Therefore, petitioner filed a

revision

under

Section

322

of

the

Karnataka

Municipalities Act before the Deputy Commissioner.

The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition on

the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner sought for review of the order

before the first respondent. The first respondent

issued an endorsement on 02.05.2015 and rejected

the request of the petitioner.

Under these circumstances, left with no other

alternate

or

efficacious

remedy,

petitioner

has

invoked the writ of jurisdiction of this Court under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3.

Learned Counsel for petitioner has urged

several grounds.

4.

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of

parties and perused the Annexures with care.

5

5.

It is not in dispute that petitioner moved an

application for change of Khata in his name before the

Commissioner, City Municipal Council Chitradurga. The

Commissioner intimated that earlier owner had not

paid the penalty. The same was challenged before the

Deputy Commissioner and the revision came to be

rejected for lack of jurisdiction. A review of the order

was sought before the Regional Commissioner and he

issued an endorsement thereby rejected the request

of the petitioner.

While arguing the case, learned HCGP submitted

that under Government notification dated 09.01.2015,

the revisional powers are vested with the Regional

Commissioner. To support the said contention, he ha