In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JULY 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION NOS.22266–22269 OF 2012 [LB-BMP] BETWEEN 1. MRS.B.SUGANDHINI DEVI W/O LATE K.SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. MRS.B.S.BHARATHI RAVEENDRA D/O LATE K.SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3. MR.B.S.VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE K.SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. MR.B.S.JAYAPRAKASH S/O LATE K.SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.952/A, 14 TH CROSS GIRINAGAR 2 ND PHASE BENGALURU 560 085. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI:RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU. 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER WARD NO.54 (GIRINAGAR) HANUMANTHANAGAR 2 SUB-DIVISION, CT BED BENGALURU – 28. ... RESPONDENTS (BY:SMT.ASHA KUMBARAGIRIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI I.G.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SKA(GN)16SKTR32/2012-13, DATED 6.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (GIRINAGAR) HANUMANTHANAGAR SUB- DIVISION, WARD NO.54, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE- A DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO GET THE NOC FROM BDA THEREBY REFUSING TO TRANSFER THE KHATHA AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The petitioners have raised the challenge to the second respondent’s endorsement, dated 6.6.2012 (Annexure-A) turning down the petitioners’ request for the transfer of khatha. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the property bearing No.952/A, 14 th Main Road, Girinagar, Bangalore-85 was allotted by the Writers and Artists House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. to Sri K.Sundar. Subsequently, the said Society executed the sale deed in respect of the property in favour of 3 K.Sundar on 13.2.1981. The said Sundar constructed a choultry, namely, ‘Sundar Mahal’ on the land in question. The khatha was effected in his favour on 12.11.2002. On the demise of Sri Sundar on 3.5.2006, his legal representatives (the petitioners herein) sought the transfer of khatha. The petitioner No.1 is his wife, the petitioner No.2 is his daughter and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are his sons. Their application, dated 25.5.2012 for the transfer of khatha is reJected by the respondent No.2 by issuing the impugned endorsement. 3. Sri RaJagopala Naidu, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased K.Sundar has left only the petitioners as his legal representatives. The petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 have already filed the affidavit that the khatha be transferred to their mother’s (first petitioner’s) name. Without considering the case of the petitioners and without assigning any specific reason, the impugned endorsement is issued. 4. Smt.Asha Kumbaragirimath, the learned counsel appearing for Sri I.G.Gachchinamath for the 4 respondents submits that the impugned endorsement is issued in compliance with the direction given by the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short). In this regard, she brings to my notice the BDA’s letter, dated 28.3.2011, which is at reference No.2 in the impugned endorsement. The said letter states that in the 2 nd and 3 rd phase of the layout formed by Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society in Avalahalli and Hosakerehalli are unauthorised and that therefore the khatha is not to be issued and the building plans are not to be approved. 5. My perusal of the impugned endorsement reveals that it is issued in a rote and mechanical manner. It is issued in the cyclo-styled form. If the order is in the cyclo-styled form, it gives rise to the presumption that it is without the application of mind. In saying so, I am fortified by this Court’s decision in the case of M/S KASIM PEER & CO. v. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, reported in ILR 1989 KAR 1172. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted hereinbelow:- 5 “10. I have examined the order passed under Annexure-B. It is no doubt true that the entire order is in a cyclostyled form in Kannada leaving gap in certain places for purposes of making relevant entries before the order is signed by the R.T.O. I also noticed that all the particulars except the signature, have been filled up in the hand-writing, probably of an official of the Department other than the R.T.O., Shimoga. It is a well known principle of law that not only justice should be done but manifestly appear to have been done. There is scope for a feeling that the authority who is empowered to pass a considered order entailing civil consequences has not applied his mind. If an order is to be passed in a cyclostyled form, the officer not even caring to fill up the gaps by making relevant entries himself the feeling is to an extent justified. It is also possible to presume on the basis of the nature of the contents in the cyclostyled form that the R.T.O. may be proceeding with a closed mind while considering the case. In public administration, a statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial power should avoid any scope for reasonable apprehension that the person appearing before him in response to a show-cause notice is not receiving fair treatment. What applies to judicial authority in similar circumstances is equally applicable to a quasi-judicial authority. Therefore, I am inclined 6 to believe that the order passed under Annexure – B in cyclostyled form seems to be an order passed mechanically and without application of judicial mind. 6. In the impugned endorsement, the non- applicable columns are not even struck off. Even assuming that it is open to the BDA to call upon the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) not to issue the khatha and approval to the building plans, it may not have application for the khatha for the legal representatives. The claims of the L.R.s can not be better or worse than those of the original khatha-holder. It is not in dispute that late K.Sundar is the khatha holder in respect of the property in question as on 12.1.2002. Assuming that he was not entitled to the registration of khatha in his favour as per BDA or that he got the khatha by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts, his khatha had to be reviewed and revoked invoking Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Having not done so, the respondents are not Justified in not issuing the L.R. khatha. It is also not the case of the respondents that 7 late K.Sundar had other legal representatives, who have succeeded to his estate. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned endorsement, dated 6.6.2012 (Annexure-A). The respondent No.2 is directed to call for obJections from the interested persons, if any. If there are no obJections from the third parties and/or if those obJections are untenable, the respondent shall transfer the khatha of the first petitioner within two months and making it clear that the same shall be subJect to the following condition:- It shall be open to the respondent No.2 to exercise the power under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 for reviewing, the khatha, if the circumstances enumerated in the said Section are existing. 8. These petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE VGR.

Load more