Judicial intervention justified to compel administrative duty in issuing property documentation.

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus against the respondent No.3 to consider his applications dated 30.08.2023 and 06.11.2023 vide Annexures-D and D1 and issue the katha extract in respect of site bearing No.1362/B, measuring East-West 15 feet North-South 15 feet.

2. The petitioner claims ownership over the petition schedule property on the strength of a sale certificate issued in his favour by respondent No.3 – Gram Panchayat. Referring to the allotment made by the Gram Panchayat in respect of site bearing Assessment No.1362/B, the petitioner contends that the site was allotted to him at an upset price of Rs.30/- per sq. ft. In furtherance of such allotment, he is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.6,750/- with Respondent No.3 on 22.04.1995. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner that, ever since the issuance of the sale certificate, he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said site.

3. The petitioner further avers that, after acquiring the property, he obtained the requisite building permission from Respondent No.3 and, pursuant to the licence dated 07.06.1995 (produced at Annexure–B), constructed a commercial complex on the site. His name was thereafter duly mutated in the records of the Town Panchayat, thereby recognising him as the owner of the petition schedule property.

4. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that despite repeated representations, the authorities have failed to issue the katha certificate/extract in respect of the property. According to him, the denial of katha, notwithstanding the possession of a sale certificate and a building licence, is arbitrary and without justification. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, while opposing the petition, has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner had earlier instituted O.S.No.27/1998 before the jurisdictional Civil Court, seeking a decree of bare injunction against Respondent No.3. The said suit was partly decreed, reserving liberty to Respondent No.3 to acquire the property in accordance with law.

6. The learned HCGP further submits that Respondent No.3, on several occasions, instructed the petitioner to vacate the premises on the ground that the land had been earmarked for an extension of the private bus stand. When the petitioner failed to comply, a legal notice dated 07.05.2021 was issued to him. The statement of objections filed in the present proceedings also records, at paragraph 5, that “Respondent No.3 intends to acquire the said property by due process of law in order to serve the interests of the public at large.” 7. The records on file demonstrate that Respondent No.3 – the Gram Panchayat duly allotted the site in question to the petitioner and issued a sale certificate in his favour. A perusal of the sale certificate shows that the land in dispute had been converted and thereafter allotted by the Gram Panchayat. Once the Gram Panchayat itself has allotted the site and issued a sale certificate, it assumes the statutory and administrative obligation to generate the requisite katha extract in respect of the allotted property. The petitioner, therefore, enjoys a legal right to obtain the katha pertaining to the site in question and cannot be left remediless by administrative inaction on the part of the authority which itself effectuated the allotment.

8. The petitioner has placed on record documentary material to demonstrate his entitlement to seek the katha. The sale certificate issued by Respondent No.3, the