PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the endorsement bearing No. DA/ward. S4 (A) KTR/28/2001-02 dated 26. 6. 2001 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent. Further, sought for a direction directing the respondent to effect necessary change of khata in the name of the petitioner pertaining to the landed property bearing Sy. No. 12/1 measuring 1360 sq. yards and Sy. No. 12/2 measuring 1830 sq. yards situated at Khatriguppa village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Non-Governmental Organisation registered as a Public Charitable Trust on 5. 8. 1976. It is an autonomous, non political, non-sectarian, non-racial and a non-commercial secular and service oriented organisation. It is established as a regional institute *w. P. Nos. 23291 and 23916/2002 (LB-RES) dated 12th December 2002 for problem oriented scientific research and result oriented field action in Rural Development. Further, the case of the petitioner is that, its organisational structure consists of the Board of Trustees who are representatives from Bangladesh, India, Japan, Nepal, Philippines, srilanka and Canada. The Trust has successfully conducted research and training programmes in the field of Rural Development with particular reference to Land Reforms, training for Agricultural research scientists, Sericulture, land and water use management, tailoring etc. Be that as it may, the petitioner has purchased the land in question as stated supra under the registered sale deed dated 3. 6. 1993 from its vendor. The State Government in view of the laudable objective of the petitioner had granted 50% concession for the registration of the said property. In pursuance of the purchase, the petitioner filed an application to the respondent for change of khata in its favour on 18. 5. 2001. Instead of considering the request of the petitioner as enunciated under the relevant provision of the act, the respondent without taking into consideration the application of the petitioner, issued an endorsement on 26. 6. 2001 vide Clause 6 stating that Rs. 100/- per sq. yard should be payable by the petitioner as charges to the Bangalore City Corporation. . . Assailing the correctness of the said endorsement, the petitioner has presented this Writ Petition. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent at considerable length of time. 6. 2001 vide Clause 6 stating that Rs. 100/- per sq. yard should be payable by the petitioner as charges to the Bangalore City Corporation. . . Assailing the correctness of the said endorsement, the petitioner has presented this Writ Petition. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent at considerable length of time. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has filed an application for change of katha on 18. 5. 2001, persuaded the concerned officials and made oral requests for sanction. Inspite of that, the officials of the respondent has not taken into consideration the application of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is compelled to issue legal notice to the respondent for sanction of the mutation/katha in its favour. But, the respondents have not considered the same, instead, they have issued an endorsement directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- per sq. yard as charges (improvement charges ). He vehemently submitted that the said endorsement issued by the respondent was not tenable on the ground the change of mutation/katha was preliminary and legal duty which do not involves any expenditure as claimed by the respondent. Therefore, he prayed for a direction to the respondent that the katha may be changed in its favour without insisting for payment of development charges as a condition. ( 5 ) TO substantiate his case, the learned Counsel placed his reliance on the law laid down by this Court in the case of KAMAL chopra vs COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF bangalore1. He pointed out that the law laid down by this Court to the effect that once the party has produced the necessary documents to change the katha, it is duty cast on the officials of the respondent to change the katha and to comply with the provisions of Section 114 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that the endorsement issued by the respondent is one without jurisdiction and it is not permissible for the respondent to insist for payment of improvement charges at the stage of considering the case of the petitioner for issue of katha. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent is liable to be set aside. Therefore, he submitted that the endorsement issued by the respondent is one without jurisdiction and it is not permissible for the respondent to insist for payment of improvement charges at the stage of considering the case of the petitioner for issue of katha. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent inter-alia, contended and justified the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent-Corporation. The respondent filed its objections contending that the corporation is entitled to insist the improvement charges as enunciated under Section 466 and 467 of the Karnataka municipal Corporation Act, 1974. It is submitted that the improvement/ betterment charges are collected at the time of changing the katha. Further, he submitted that reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as cited supra is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, he prayed that the Writ petition may be dismissed. ( 7 ) I have perused the impugned endorsement carefully, reassessed the matter thoroughly with the assistance of both the counsel under-evaluated the entire material available on record. ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased the property in question under the registered sale deed and after the purchase, made an application before the respondent for change of katha and to enter his name in the Katha register. The said request of the petitioner is not considered by the respondent-Corporation inspite of their oral request made to the officials of the respondent. Then the petitioner is compelled to issue legal notice to the commissioner of the respondent-Corporation on 5. 1. 2002 appraising the entire matter and the law laid down by this Court that the corporation authority cannot insists the improvement/betterment charges at the time of considering the request of the petitioner for change of katha. On the basis of the registered sale deed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance on the government order dated 24. 8. 2002 appraising the entire matter and the law laid down by this Court that the corporation authority cannot insists the improvement/betterment charges at the time of considering the request of the petitioner for change of katha. On the basis of the registered sale deed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance on the government order dated 24. 8. 2001 issued by the Under-Secretary to Government Urban Development Department in respect of the similarly situated persons, wherein the Government has directed the commissioner of the respondent-Mahanagara Palike stating that in the absence of specific statutory provision and the affidavit filed before the High Court, it is not reasonable to insist on payment of improvement charges or exempt the application from payment of improvement charges. This fact is also brought to the notice of the respondent by the petitioner, but instead of following the direction issued by the Government in respect of similarly situated persons and also relevant provisions of the Act that it is duty cast on the corporation authority to consider the request of the petitioner and to register the name of the petitioner in the katha register, the respondent has issued the impugned endorsement. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in the case of KAMAL CHOPRA vs commissioner, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE (supra) wherein this Court has held that: However, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the corporation that under Section 14 (3) of the Act, the petitioners were bound to produce before the Commissioner any document evidencing the transfer of succession and they having failed to produce such documents, the Corporation was justified in refusing to enter their names in the katha register. The words any documents evidencing the transfer or succession as occurring under sub- section (3) of Section 114 of the Act would only mean the relevant documents to support the title of the petitioners to the property in question. The material on record discloses that the property was in possession of the Mysore Spinning and manufacturing Co. Ltd. since the year 1904 and they sold the property to M/s. C. N. Char and Co. in the year 1970. The material on record discloses that the property was in possession of the Mysore Spinning and manufacturing Co. Ltd. since the year 1904 and they sold the property to M/s. C. N. Char and Co. in the year 1970. So, this company was in possession of the property for a period of about 7 decades and, therefore, their right to own and enjoy the property could not have been challenged by any party including the government after a lapse of more than 60 years. So prima facie this company was the original owner of the property and only from this company M/s. C. N. Char and Co. had indisputably obtained the property in question under the sale deed executed in the year 1970 and M/s. C. N. Char and Co. had transferred this property to the petitioners in the year 1984, i. e. after a lapse of nearly 14 years. In the circumstances, for the purpose of section 114 (3) of the Act, the only relevant documents for effecting transfer of katha were the two registered sale deeds which prove the transfer of the land from the original owner to M/s C. N. Char and Co. and from M/s. C. N. Char and Co. , to the petitioners and these two documents admittedly were produced by the petitioners. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners did not comply with the provisions of Section 114 of the Act. They having established that they had discharged their statutory obligation under Section 114 (3) of the Act, the Corporation is bound to issue the katha in their favour in the discharge of its duties. ( 10 ) IF the ratio of the above cited judgment is applied to the case in hand, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Section 114 of the Act and the petitioner having established that it had discharged its statutory obligation under section 114 (3) of the Act, the Corporation is bound to issue katha in its favour in the discharge of its duties. ( 11 ) IN view of the well settled law laid down by this Court as cited supra, the endorsement issued by the respondent-Corporation insisting the petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- per sq. yard as improvement charges to change katha in favour of the petitioner is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. ( 11 ) IN view of the well settled law laid down by this Court as cited supra, the endorsement issued by the respondent-Corporation insisting the petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- per sq. yard as improvement charges to change katha in favour of the petitioner is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, in my considered view, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent on 26. 6. 2001 (Annexure-A) is not at all sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. ( 12 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the factual and legal aspect of the instant case and also taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court as 1. ILR 1988 (3) KAR 2416 stated supra, I do not find any justification to sustain the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The endorsement bearing No. D/a WARD. S4 (A) KTR/28/2001-02 dated 26. 6. 2001 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent is hereby set aside. The respondent herein is directed to effect necessary change of katha in the name of petitioner pertaining to the property bearing sy. No. 12/1 measuring 1360 sq. yards and Sy. No. 12/2 measuring 1830 sq. yards situated at Khatriguppa village, Uttarahalli Hobli, bangalore South Taluk, as expeditiously as possible, within 4 months from the date of the receipt of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court has not considered the liability of the petitioner for payment of any improvement/betterment charges. It is open for the respondent-Corporation to insist the same as enunciated under Sections 466 and 467 of the Corporation Act, if it so desires, at appropriate stage. --- *** --- .