Sri T K Babu Rangan v. The State of Karnataka

- 1e- (HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:36819( WP(No.(16553(of(2022( CNR:(KAHC010373302022( INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA THDATEDATHISATHEA17 ADAYAOFAJULY,A2026A BEFOREA THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA WRITAPETITIONANO.A16553AOFA2022A(LB-RES)A BETWEEN:AA SRI-T-K-BABU-RANGAN-S/O-LATE-D-K-KEMPEGOWDA-AGED-ABOUT-54-YEARS-R/A-HOUSE-NO.3-NEAR-MARAMMA-TEMPLE-KURIPALYA-TUMAKURU-CITY-572102.- …PETITIONER- (BY-SRI.-FAYAZ-SAB-B-G.,ADVOCATE)- AND:A Digitally signedtiby 1. THE-STATE-OF-KARNATAKA VANAMALA REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-SECRETARY N DEPARTMENT-OF-URBAN-DEVELOPMENTLocation: HIGH MULTI-STORIED-BUILDING COURT0OF BENGALURU-560001. KARNATAKA

¶2THE-COMMISSIONER TUMKURU-MAHANAGARA-PALIKE TOWN-HALL TUMAKURU-572101.

¶3THE-ASSISTANT-EXECUTIVE-ENGINEER TUMKURU-MAHANAGARA-PALIKE e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:36819( WP(No.(16553(of(2022( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010373302022( ( ( TOWN-HALL-TUMAKURU-572101.-…RESPONDENTS-(BY-SRI.KENCHEGOWDA.,-AGA-FOR-R1;-------SRI.-R-SUBRAMANYA.,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R2-&-R3)---THIS-W.P.-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-QUASH-AN-IMPUGNED-ENDORSEMENT-BEARING-NO.-TU.MA.PA./KOM.SHA/CR/7166/2019-20-DATED-

17.5.2022-ISSUED-BY-THE-R-2-INSTEAD-OF-CONSIDERING-THE-CLAIM-OF-THE-PETITIONER-FOR-REGISTERING-THE-KHATHA-OF-THE-SCHEDULE-PROPERTY-IN-THE-NAME-OF-THE-PETITIONER-IS-KEPT-IN-ABEYANCE-BY-ASSIGNING-FLIMSY-REASONS-THAT-THE-LAYOUT-PLAN-IS-NOT-APPROVED-BY-THE-COMPETENT-AUTHORITY-WHCIH-IS-PRODUCED-AND-MARKED-AS-ANNEXURE-N-AS-ILLEGAL-ARBITRARY-CAPRICIOUS-AND-DISCRIMINATORY-AND-ISSUED-WITHOUT-APPLICATION-OF-MIND;-DIRECT-THE-R-2-TO-CONSIDER-THE-CLAIM-OF-THE-PEITOTNER-FOR-REGISTERING-KHATHA-OF-THE-SCHEDULE-PROEPRTY-IN-THE-NAME-OF-THE-PETITIONER-AND-ISSUE-ASSESSMENT-NUMBER-SO-AS-TO-ENABLE-THE-PETITIONER-TO-REMIT-THE-PROPERTY-TAX-TO-THE-R-2-CORPORATION-WHCIH-ARE-PRODUCED-AND-MARKED-AS-ANNEXURE-M.--

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner's grievance is with the Endorsement dated 17.05.2022 [Annexure-N]. The second respondent has issued this Endorsement stating that the petitioner's request for revenue entries based on a decree in the suit in O.S.No.624/2002 cannot be considered because the concerned Urban Development Authority has informed that the modification of the layout is not approved and therefore the revenue entries would not be justified.

¶2This Court, on 08.06.2026, has recorded the following question:

"Whether the petitioner's father is given the benefit of approval for formation of sites in an extent of 30/31 guntas in Sy.Nos.8/2 and 8/3

of Veerasagara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkuru District permitting him to retain the ownership of an area described as an open space in the approved layout plan."

This Court has called upon the learned counsel for the second respondent to ensure that a Report is filed in the light of the submissions on behalf of the second respondent that the property would be inspected. Presently, a Report is filed with an enclosed sketch.

¶3Sri R. Subramanya, the learned counsel for the second and the third respondents, submits that this Court may not intervene to issue any direction unless there is an appropriate declaration in a properly instituted suit with a competent Court against the concerned private individuals and all the competent authorities, and in this regard, the learned counsel emphasizes the following.

[a] The petitioner relies upon the registered Deed of Transfer Agreement executed in favour of Veerasagara Group Panchayat Authority on 04.02.1983 [Annexure-C], but the executor of the 'Transfer Agreement' under whom the petitioner proposes to assert interest has unilaterally cancelled the Deed of Transfer Agreement by a registered Deed of Cancellation dated 16.11.1984 [Annexure-D]. [b] The Inspection and the Report show that the petitioner is claiming revenue entries for a portion that is distinct and separate from where a Nagarkatte is situated. The terms for disposal of the petition are considered in the light of the afore. The sketch, which is part of the Report, reads as under:

¶4The sketch shows that the Nagarakatte is in a portion marked in Yellow and the petitioner asserts revenue entries to the portion marked in Red. This indicates that there is a dispute about the location of the property claimed by the petitioner. Further, unless the permissibility of the unilateral cancellation of the 'Transfer Agreement' and the rights that have accrued are not examined in a properly instituted suit, this Court cannot intervene in favour of the petitioner. As such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to

avail remedy as would be permissible in law subject to all just exceptions. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr