1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 51794 OF 2019(LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SHIVAMADHU

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,

R/AT NO. 41-A, 1^ST MAIN,

KUMBARA KOPPALU

MYSURU - 570005

SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.B S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER

MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,

MYSURU - 570 001

2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER

ZONAL OFFICE - 5

MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,

BASAVANAGUDI CIRCLE,

HEBBAL, MYSURU - 570005

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.GEETHA DEVI M P, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

2

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT

DATED 30.07.2019 AT ANNX-A AND ALLOW THIS W.P. WITH COST.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN

'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari

to quash the endorsement dated 30.07.2019 issued by the 2^nd

respondent as per Annexure-A.

2.

The brief facts leading to the case are as under:

It is the case of the petitioner that his father late Chikkanna

was the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing

Survey No.227 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas situated at Hebbalu

Village, Mysuru Taluk. The property in question lies outside the city

limits of the Mysuru City Corporation and within the jurisdiction of

Mandal Panchayath of Hinkal and within the Urban Land Ceiling and

Regulation limit. The father of the petitioner had filed the

declaration before the competent authority and out of total extent

of 4,310 sq.meters, the petitioner's father was exempted to hold

3

3000 sq.meters of land which is inclusive of residential house as per

the order dated 19.07.1985. The petitioner also claims that the

petition land was duly converted for the purpose of residential

usage vide order dated 25.07.1985. Having secured conversion,

the petitioner's father submitted a plan for formation of layout and

the same was approved by the local authority namely Hilkal Mandal

Panchayath and licence was issued on 3.11.1987. The petitioner's

father had applied for development of the said property to the Town

Planning Authority. Since there was inaction on the part of the

authorities, the petitioner places reliance on the deemed permission

under Sections 14 and 15 of the Karnataka Town and Country

Planning Act.

3.

It is the further case of the petitioner that his father's

name was duly mutated in the records of the Hinkal Panchayath

and when the jurisdiction of the respondent-Municipal Council was

extended to the petitioner's property, his father's name was

continued in the katha of the respondent-Municipal Council. The

petitioner claims that he has paid upto date tax to the respondnt-

Council. The petitioner's father died on 2.8.1997 leaving behind his

4

wife Smt. Siddamma, who also died subsequently. The petitioner

having succeeded to the petition property submitted an application

for transfer of katha and accordingly, the katha has been changed

and the petitioner's name is duly mutated in the place of his father

by order dated 18.06.2018. After lapse of one year, the 2^nd

respondent-Zonal Commissioner has unilaterally cancelled the

katha transferred in the name of the petitioner and has

consequently issued an endorsement dated 30.07.2019 as per

Annexure-A.

4.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petition

property is the ancestral property. After the death of his father, he

has succeeded to the same and the katha was changed in his name.

However, the 2^nd respondent without hearing the petitioner has

issued the impugned endorsement which is in gross violation of the

principles

of

natural

justice

and

as

such,

the

impugned

endorsement is liable to be set aside.

5.

However, the learned counsel for the responde