IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.13059/2020 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN

FLT. LT. V.K.NAYAR (RETD.)

ALIAS KRISHNAN NAYAR VELIYATH

S/O. MR. E. NARAYANA NAIR,

AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,

NO.95, UTOPIA,

TARABANAHALLI VILLAGE,

CHICKJALA POST,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 157.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK PANCHAYATH,

YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064.

2.

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

BENGALURU - 562 157.

3.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

BENGALURU CITY PANCHAYATH,

KANAKAPURA ROAD,

2

BANASHANKARI,

BENGALURU – 560 054.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER

DTD.20.12.2019

i.e

ANNEXURE-A

PASSED

BY

THE

EXECUTIVE OFFICER BANGALORE NORTH TALUK PANCHAYATH

YELAHAKA BENGALURU i.e THE R-1 AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition is calling in question an

order dated 20.12.2019, passed by the first respondent -

Executive Officer, which directs the second respondent -

Panchayat Development Officer to cancel the entry in the

revenue records that stood in the name of the petitioner and the

consequent action carried out by the Panchayat Development

Officer by removing the name of the petitioner from the

Assessment Register-Khata.

2. Heard Sri Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri B.J.Somayaji, learned counsel appearing

for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3

3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition

as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

The petitioner formed a layout comprising of many survey

numbers at Tarabanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North

Taluk, after an approval being granted by the Bangalore

International Airport Area Planning Authority (‘BIAAPA’ for short)

and an approval for forming an layout on the site No.211, the

schedule property in the subject writ petition.

4. The petitioner claims to have approached the Chikkajala

Village Panchayat to lease out the schedule property for setting

up a school, which was sanctioned and approved in the name of

the petitioner. The petitioner again approached the Chikkajala

Village Panchayat to start a Wellness Centre rendering non-

invasive medical treatment in the schedule property instead of a

school, which was also resolved to be granted in favour of the

petitioner. In turn, which the petitioner claims to be running a

Medical Centre in schedule property.

4

5. Things standing thus, it transpires that the Taluk

Executive Officer by his communication dated 20.12.2019,

directs the Panchayat Development Officer to cancel the khata

that stood in the name of the petitioner and an order is issued

on 20.12.2019, as the usage of the property allegedly is in

violation of law. This communication from the Taluk Executive

Officer to the Panchayat Development Officer. It is acted upon

by the Panchayat Development Officer and the name of the

petitioner is struck off from the Demand Register – khata. The

petitioner is before this Court calling in question the aforesaid

action of cancellation of khata and consequent deletion of his

name from the Demand Register.

6. It is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner was

entered into the Demand Register - Khata in the year 2007 and

was standing in the name of the petitioner upto the date of the

impugned order dated 20.12.2019. Therefore, the direction of

cancellation of khata or the consequential action of cancellation

could not