Karnataka High Court Upholds Municipality’s Refusal to Issue e-Khata, Urges State to Frame Policy Regulating Sites in Converted Lands Outside Sanctioned Layouts
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a writ petition challenging the municipal authority’s refusal to issue an e-khata for residential sites in Holalkere Town, holding that the petitioner could not claim such entitlement for plots outside an approved layout. The Court observed that the local body was not legally bound to issue e-khatas where the layout lacked statutory sanction under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. Noting the growing number of similar cases, the Court also urged the State Government to frame a comprehensive policy to regulate transactions involving converted lands that do not form part of sanctioned layouts.
The petitioner purchased a residential site situated in Holalkere Town through a registered sale deed executed in May 2010. The site, carved out of converted land, was not part of any approved layout. A manual khata was later issued by the local authority in 2015, and the petitioner continued to pay property taxes regularly, producing relevant receipts and tax forms as evidence. Seeking to obtain an e-khata in respect of the same property, the petitioner applied to the Holalkere Town Municipality by submitting documents including the title deed, conversion order, and proof of tax payment.
The municipal authority rejected the application through an endorsement issued in June 2024, citing circulars issued by the Urban Development Department and the Directorate of Municipal Administration in 2017 and 2018. These circulars directed that e-khatas should not be issued for properties not forming part of a layout approved by a competent planning authority. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the Court seeking to set aside the municipal endorsements and to direct the municipality to issue the e-khata and extract for the property.
In response, the municipal authority contended that the endorsement was in strict compliance with the Government circulars and that it was legally barred from issuing e-khatas for sites lacking approved layout plans. It further submitted that it had earlier written to the Government requesting permission to collect betterment charges to regularize such sites, but the request had been declined. The State Government maintained that issuance of khatas for such properties would violate Section 17(2B) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, which requires completion of development works, approval of layout plans, and handover of civic amenities before any property rights could be recognized.
The Court referred to Section 17(2B) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, observing that “the Planning Authority shall ensure the completion of all development works including all infrastructure facilities as mentioned in sub-section (2A) under the supervision of the concerned Authority or Department.” The Court noted that under this provision, final layout approval can only be granted after obtaining a completion certificate, and only thereafter can sites within such approved layouts be considered for building permissions or khata issuance.
The Bench observed that “the reliance placed by the petitioner on certain coordinate Bench decisions is wholly misplaced and cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.” It was recorded that in those cases, the local authority had already collected betterment charges, which estopped it from refusing issuance of khata. In contrast, in the present matter, no such charges had been collected, and the Government had expressly prohibited issuance of e-khata for sites outside sanctioned layouts.
The Court recorded that “though the site purchased by the petitioner is carved out of converted land, the admitted position is that the same does not form part of an approved layout.” The judgment noted that Section 17(2B) was introduced “with the legislative object of curbing haphazard and unregulated formation of sites in revenue lands and converted lands.” The provision was described as imposing a “mandatory duty on landowners and developers to obtain approval of the layout plan from the competent planning authority.” The Court observed that individual site owners could acquire enforceable rights only after the final layout plan is approved and all civic amenities are handed over to the local authority.
The Bench further recorded that “the object behind insertion of sub-section (2B) is to ensure orderly development of urban areas, proper provision of civic amenities, and to prevent mushrooming of illegal layouts which burden public infrastructure.” Referring to the facts, the Court found that the petitioner’s site was outside any sanctioned plan and that respondent No.3 had no authority to issue e-khata contrary to Section 17(2B) and the Government circulars.
Justice Magadum observed that “in light of the above statutory mandate and the Government Circulars, respondent No.3 cannot be said to be under any legal obligation to entertain the petitioner’s request for issuance of e-khata.” The Court clarified that the writ of mandamus could not be issued in the absence of a corresponding legal right and statutory duty, stating that “a writ of mandamus lies only where there exists a corresponding duty cast on the authority and a legal right vested in the petitioner.” In the absence of both, the Court held, the relief sought was untenable.
The judgment also noted a broader concern regarding unapproved sites, observing that “the larger issue arising out of such transactions needs to be addressed at the policy level.” The Bench remarked that “with increasing instances of purchasers acquiring sites in converted lands which are not part of sanctioned layouts, there is a pressing necessity for the State to devise a comprehensive scheme to regulate such transactions.” It was further stated that unless such a scheme is framed, “courts cannot, in individual cases, bypass the statutory mandate and issue directions contrary to law.”
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum concluded that “the petitioner, having purchased a site which admittedly does not form part of a sanctioned layout, cannot claim a corresponding legal right to demand issuance of e-khata.” The Court recorded that “the State Government itself, in exercise of its statutory powers, has clarified that issuance of khata contrary to the mandate of Section 17(2B) of the Act is impermissible.”
“The legislative intent behind insertion of Section 17(2B) is to strike a balance between urban development and the rights of innocent purchasers, while ensuring that civic infrastructure and planned growth of towns are not compromised.” In this context, the Court found “no ground to interfere with the endorsement impugned.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri. R. Shashidhara, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri. Rahul Rai K., High Court Government Pleader; Sri. B.K. Manjunath, Advocate
Case Title: U. Mamatha v. State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:37805
Case Number: WP No. 21648 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum
