Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 37 (KAR)

Zonal Commissioner, Mysuru City v. State of Karnataka

2026-01-06

D.K.SINGH, S.RACHAIAH

body2026
JUDGMENT : D.K. SINGH, J. 1. These appeals have been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28900/2023 and other connected writ petitions. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Writ Petitions for the sake of convenience. 3. Fourteen persons were allotted sites in Sy. No. 39/1A, measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated within the jurisdictional limits of the Srirampura Grama Panchayath in Koppallur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, by the allotment letter dated 12.04.1976. 4. In W.P.No.28900/2023, the petitioner is the original allottee of the site, whereas in the other writ petitions, the petitioners have purchased the sites from the original allottees. The petitioners have made applications for constructions of the residential houses for which, the licenses had been issued in the year 1983 and onwards by the concerned Gram Panchayath. After completion of the constructions, the Completion Certificates were also issued and thus, the petitioners are in use and occupation of the residential houses constructed on the sites allotted in Sy.No.39/1A to one petitioner i.e., the petitioner in W.P. No. 28900/2023 and to the predecessors-in-interest of the other petitioners. 5. The Gram Panchayath, Srirampura, in Koppallur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk got amalgamated with the Mysore Municipal Corporation in 2017. 6. The petitioners approached the Municipal Corporation for including their sites for payment of municipal taxes in the Mysore Municipal Corporation. The petitioners submitted all the relevant documents, as certified by the Zonal Commissioner Office as per annexure-G. The Zonal Commissioner, by the order dated 20.01.2023, has certified seven documents which include the letter dated 20.02.1960 i.e., the Special Deputy Commissioner's Permission for residential purposes; The proceedings of the meeting held on 10/03/1976 under the chairmanship of the Administrative Officer and Field Development Officers of Srirampura Gram Panchayath where allotment of sites in Sy.No.39/1A mentioned above; An approved map of the said layout; A list of beneficiaries and a copy of claim deed issued to 14 beneficiaries, permission letter from the competent Authority to use Sy.No.39/1A from 'B - Karab' to residential purposes; Srirampura Gram Panchayath letter dated 12.12.2019 and a copy of letter of the Taluk Panchayath, Mysore dated 13.12.2019. The Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayath, Mysore has also issued certified copies of the aforesaid documents. 7. The Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayath, Mysore has also issued certified copies of the aforesaid documents. 7. Despite submission of all these documents before the Mysore Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Corporation issued an endorsement dated 24.05.2023, impugned in the writ petition, stating that the land in Sy.No.39/1A was reclassified as 'B-Karab' Land. 8. Learned Single Judge, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the effect of the allotment of 14 sites vide order dated 12.04.1976, and the licenses issued for carrying out the construction in favour of the owners of the 14 sites as well as the Katha and E-Katha that were issued in favour of the allottees by the Gram Panchayath, allowed the writ petition and set aside the endorsement dated 24.05.2023. 9. Once the decision was taken to change the B-Karab land in Katha No.39/1A for allotment in favour of 14 allottees for construction of the residential units and in fact, the allottees/subsequent purchasers from the original allottees had put up the construction in the year 1983 onwards, the decision of the Mysore Municipal Corporation to re-change the said land as 'B-Karab' land was wholly improper, unjustified and arbitrary. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting an interference by this Court, and we hereby dismiss this writ appeal without costs. 11. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.