DR V M KERUDI vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 100938 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . DR. V.M. KERUDI,
RTD. DOCTOR,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT: ASHOK CIRCLE,
EASTERN EXTENSION,
KERUDI COMPLEX,
RANEBENNUR-581 115.
2. SHIVAYOGI KERUDI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT: ASHOK CIRCLE,
EASTERN EXTENSION KERUDI COMPLEX,
RANEBENNUR-581 115.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DR. V.M. KERUDI, PART-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
VIKAAS SOUDHA,
TH
4 FLOOR, ROOM NO.435,
BANGALORE -01, KARNATAKA.
2. DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR,
AMBEDKAR VEEDI, V V TOWER,
TH
NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA, 9 FLOOR,
BANGALORE -01, KARNATAKA.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
3. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,
D C OFFICE, DEVAGIRI,
HAVERI-581 110.
4. COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPALITY,''
RANEBENNUR, STATION ROAD,
DIST. HAVERI,
RANEBENNUR-581 115.
5. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, D C COMPOUND,
BELAGAVI-590001.
6. CHIEF SECRETARY.
GOVT OF KARNATAKA,
RD
3 FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANAGLORE -01
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA J. SEQUEIRA, AGA FOR R1, R2, R3, R5 AND R6;
SRI. PRASHANT HOSMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
QUASH/SUSPEND/DISMISS THE ILLEGAL ORDER BEARING NUMBER
AS UNDER WHICH ARRE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4/CMC
COMMISSIONER, RANEBENNUR. A .
£ÀA:£À,¸À,gÁ/PÀA«.¥ÀÆ.¥À.§/ªÀ»/06/2024-25 No.852 DT 06/11/2024
ANNEXURE-D PAGE 68. B. £ÀA:£À,¸À,gÁ/PÀA«.¥ÀÆ.¥À.§/ªÀ»/06/2024-
25 NO.226 dt 29/04/2025 ANNEXURE-F page 78. C.
£ÀA:£À,¸À,gÁ/PÀA«.¥ÀÆ.¥À.§/ªÀ»/06/2024-25 No.1441 DT 21/01/2026
ANNEXURE-L PAGE no 102.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 11.11.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
CAV JUDGMENT
The present writ petition is filed seeking for the
following reliefs:
1. A writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or
quash/suspend/dismiss the illegal order bearing
number as under which arre issued by respondent
no.4/cmc commissioner, ranebennur.
a . £ÀA:£À,¸À,gÁ/PÀA«/¥ÀÆ.¥À.§/ªÀ»/06/2024-25 No.852 dt
06/11/2024 annexure-D PAGE 68.
b. £ÀA:£À,¸À,gÁ/PÀA«.¥ÀÆ.¥À.§/ªÀ»/06/2024-25 NO.226 dt
29/04/2025 annexure-F page 78.
c. £ÀA:£À,¸À,gÁ/PÀA«.¥ÀÆ.¥À.§/ªÀ»/06/2024-25 No.1441 dt
21/01/2026 annexure-L PAGE no 102.
2. Issue a writ of Mandamus direct Respondent
no.4/CMC Commissioner, Ranebennur to issue
occupancy certificate as stated at Para 2,3,5 in form
9 of KLR rules 1966 (Rule-86) Section-154(2) / KLR
act, 1964 and Section-149 read with rule 93/A and
section 72 (2) Act 1964 K.M. Act. As order pass
dated: 03/04/2024 in writ petition no. 105498/2022
Para 7, Page 51 at Annexure A and order dated
26/06/2025 in CCC No. 100196/2025 page no. 84
Annexure G
3. Issue such other directions and grant other
consequential relief as directed with guidelines during
proceedings under contempt dt 24/02/2025
annexure-E page 76 to the petitioner. If not complied
must avail remedy under the appropriate law.
2. Although the reliefs and the averments in the
petition do not articulate the proper facts, the relevant
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
facts which are noticed hereunder is upon consideration of
the material on record including the earlier orders passed
by this Court. The same is resorted to having regard to the
fact that the petitioner is a party in person and the
necessary averments as well as the reliefs have not been
articulated in a proper and orderly manner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner- party in person
that during the year 1912-1915, the Governor in Council
had resolved that certain lands in the village of
Ranebennur would be taken over by the Government at
the expenses of the Municipality of Ranebennur, so as to
prepare a plan for development of the said area. The
landowners were to be paid compensation for the land.
Accordingly a layout of sites was formed and the said sites
were allotted to different persons pursuant to an auction
conducted. That the plots were auctioned to the highest
bidder on perpetual lease hold basis. An assessment was
also fixed and directed to be paid in advance by the
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
allottees. The predecessor of the petitioners was declared
the highest bidder in respect of CTS No. 1862, Plot No.
1 2
29 , which belonged to one Sri Shankar Vijapura . A
resolution dated 18.12.1915 was passed by the
Government, recommending for the sale of the said plot in
favour of the owner. An allotment was made on the basis
of a permanent lease in terms of Government Order No.
4483 dated 17.08.1917 with permission to the allottees to
put up construction. A permanent lease was executed in
favour of the said Sri Shankar Vijapura, and consequent to
his death, the name of his son Sri Gurunath Vijapur was
entered in the requisite records.
4. In the year 1944, the said Sri Gurunath Vijapur
sold/assigned the plot in favour of Smt. Chinnavva, wife of
Shankarappa Bankapurushettar vide registered document
dated 19.08.1944, subsequent to which her name was
entered in the requisite records. In the year 1951, the
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’.
2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ owner’
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
father-in-law of Smt. Chinnava, i.e., Sanghabassappa
Veerabassappa Shettar, succeeded to the subject property
in terms of will dated 14.11.1950. On 18.11.1959, the said
Sri Sanghapassappa sold the subject property in favour of
Sri Malleshappa, son of Sri. Malakappa Kerudi. His son, the
petitioner no. 1, Dr. V. M. Kerudi filed a suit for partition
(OS No. 144 of 1965) wherein half share of the property
was allotted to petitioner No.1 - Dr. V. M. Kerudi. On
12.12.1994, the said M. M. Kerudi i.e., father of petitioner
No.1, executed a will bequeathing his share to his
grandson, petitioner No.2 - Shivayogi V Kerudi.
Accordingly the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 claim to be the
owners/permanent lessees of the subject property.
5. The petitioners being desirous of demolishing
and putting up new construction, applied for a sanction
plan which was granted on 28.04.2020. The petitioners
approached the respondents for issuance of no-objection
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
3
certificate to avail loans which was rejected on the ground
that a government order had been issued whereunder it
was proposed that a perpetual lease could be converted
into a freehold right on payment of 25% of the guidance
value fixed and as such the petitioner was called upon to
pay the said amount. Being aggrieved, the petitioners
preferred WP No. 105498 of 2022. A Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court noticing the fact situation had deduced that the
petitioners were seeking a confirmation from this Court
that they are the owners of the property. In the
alternative, a direction was sought that the Government
Order dated 11.12.2020 is not applicable to the petitioners
since they did not wish to make payment of 25% of the
market value of the property fixed to convert the leasehold
rights into freehold rights. Accordingly, the Co-ordinate
Bench ordered as under vide order dated 03.04.2024
(Annexure A to the writ petition):
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘NOC’
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
"ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) It is declared that the perpetual lease in favour of the
petitioners would continue to be valid and binding both
on the State and the Municipality so long as the
petitioners make payment of the due lease rentals.
iii) Since the petitioners do not wish to convert
leasehold rights to freehold rights, there cannot be any
compulsion on the petitioners to make payment of the
amounts demanded.
iv) The Government order No. Na.Aa.Ee/19/TMD/2011
dated 11-12- 2020 is declared to be optional at the
option of the petitioners.
v) Merely because the petitioners were not to exercise
the option of conversion of leasehold rights to freehold
rights, they cannot be denied the benefit of use of the
property in question under the perpetual lease.
vi) Respondent-Municipality is directed to issue
necessary No Objection Certificate to enable the
petitioners to seek for and process the loan from any
bank or financial institution.
vii) The respondent-Municipality shall process any and
all applications filed by the petitioners for issuance of
plan sanction, commencement certificate, occupancy
certificate etc., in terms of applicable law.
viii) The petitioners being entitled to exercise all rights
under the perpetual lease in respect of the said
property, the ownermunicipality is entitled only for lease
rentals."
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
6. The 3rd respondent - Commissioner, City
4
Municipality preferred WA.No. 100286 of 2024. The
Petitioners preferred a contempt petition in CCC No.
100203 of 2024. A Division bench of this Court,
considering the said appeal as well as the contempt
petition, vide its order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure B to
the writ petition), dismissed the appeal and granted 8
weeks' time for complying with the directions passed vide
order dated 03.04.2024 in WP No. 105498 of 2022. It is
pertinent to note here that the contempt petition (CCC No.
100203 of 2024) was also disposed of by the Division
Bench vide its order dated 10.09.2024. Subsequently the
petitioners sought for revival of the contempt
5
proceedings . The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 24.02.2025, considering the said application,
ordered as under:
“7. This Court must observe that there is no specific
direction in the Writ Petition or Writ Appeal for
4
Hereinafter referred to as ‘Municipality’
5
Vide IA 1/2025 filed in CCC No. 10203/2024
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
issuance of Occupancy Certificate in Form No.9 under
the aforesaid KLR Act /KLR Rules and this would be
crucial with the complainants stating that the erstwhile
owners [under whom the complainants] have been
issued such Certificate in the past and they are entitled
for a Certificate once again subject to certain payment
The first complainant proposes to elaborate to justify
the complainants’ case that proceedings must be
continued because of the failure to issue Occupancy
Certificate in Form No.9 under KLR Act/ Rules.
However, this Court, given the narrow jurisdiction in
the Contempt proceedings, is not inclined to enter into
merits on the rival claims. Hence, the following:
a. The application for revival of the complaint is
disposed of with liberty to the complainants to
submit applications with the Jurisdictional
Tahasildar and the Commissioner for Occupancy
Certificate in Form No9 under KLR Act/KLR Rules.
b. It is needless to observe that if the complainants
have any cause against the consideration of such
application or the non consideration thereof they
must avail the remedy under the appropriate law
but cannot seek revival of this complaint.
c. The complainants will be at liberty to make such
application within 4 four weeks from the date of the
receipt of a certified copy and the Jurisdictional
Tahasildar and Commissioner are called upon to
communicate their decision independently within a
period of the next six 6 weeks therefrom”
7. Thereafter the petitioners preferred contempt
petition (CCC. No. 100196 of 2025). A Division Bench of
this Court vide order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure G to the
writ petition) dismissed the said contempt petition. It is
pertinent to notice the said order, which reads as under:
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
"The petitioner – party-in-person who had earlier
filed a contempt petition in CCC No.100203/2024 has
once again filed this contempt petition alleging that
the 1st respondent – Commissioner, CMC,
Ranebennur has intentionally, deliberately misguided
during revival proceedings and has declined to issue
occupancy certificate in Form No.9.
2. However, we find from the orders passed in
CCC No.100203/2024 that the Co-ordinate Bench has
held that there is no specific direction in the writ
petition or writ appeal for issuance of Occupancy
Certificate in Form No.9. Therefore, while disposing of
the contempt petition, liberty was reserved to the
complainants to submit applications with the
jurisdictional Tahsildar and/or the Commissioner for
Occupancy Certificate in Form No.9 under KLR
Act/KLR Rules. It was also directed that if the
complainants have any cause against the
consideration of such application or the non-
consideration thereof, they must avail the remedy
under the appropriate law, but cannot seek revival of
the complaint. Liberty was reserved to the
complainants to make such application within four
weeks and the jurisdictional Tahsildar and
Commissioner were directed to communicate their
decision independently within a period of six weeks
from the date when the application is filed by the
complainants.
3. Now it is the grievance of the complainants that
the Commissioner has rejected the application and
has not issued the occupancy certificate. Therefore,
having regard to the directions already issued by the
Co-ordinate Bench, the complainants may have a
fresh cause of action to question the action of the
Commissioner in not issuing occupancy certificate.
However, no contempt would arise having regard to
the facts of the case narrated hereinabove.
4. Accordingly, the contempt petition is
dismissed."
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
8. Thereafter the petitioners filed RP No. 100078
of 2025 in WP No. 105498 of 2022. A Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, vide order dated 16.09.2025 dismissed the
said review petition. The relevant portion of the order
dated 16.09.2025 reads as under:
“2. A perusal of the Review Petition indicates the
same has apparently been necessitated on account
of the observations made in the Writ Appeal filed
in WA No.100286 of 2024 and the Contempt
Petition which has been filed by the petitioner in
CCC No.100203 of 2024. The contention which had
been taken up by the petitioner in the Writ Appeal
is that occupancy certificate has to be granted
since this Court has held that the petitioner’s right
is heritable and transferable.
3. I am of the considered opinion that in the
present matter when the writ petition has been
considered and answered, the question of
consideration of any occupancy rights would not
arise, since what is subject matter was only
perpetual lease as regards which the respondents
had issued a notice providing an option to the
petitioner to convert into freehold property by
making payment of due amounts. The petitioner
chose not to convert into freehold property but to
continue the property as a leasehold property
albeit by paying the lease rentals from time to
time.
4. The petitioner by way of the present Review
Petition cannot convert his leasehold rights to
freehold rights by seeking for occupancy certificate
when the same has already been rejected.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
5. No grounds have been made out for review of
the order dated 03.04.2024, since the issue of
occupancy certificate was never considered in the
said order.
6. If at all, the petitioner wishes to convert his
land to freehold rights, this Court has already held
that the same can be at the option of the lessee
the petitioner can do so by making payment of the
due amounts to the respondent.
7. Insofar as creation of mortgage and obtaining
loan is concerned, the respondent would always be
liable to issue a “No Objection Certificate” for
raising of a loan on the lease hold basis, which
learned counsel for respondent submits has
already been issued.
8. No grounds being made out, there being no
error on the face of the record, but a new
contention having been raised, the Review Petition
stands dismissed.”
9. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition.
10. It is forthcoming from a perusal of the
averments made in the writ petition as well as the reliefs
sought that the petitioner seeks for issuance of occupancy
certificate in Form 9 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,
6
1966 . It is pertinent to note that Form 9 of the Land
6
Hereinafter referred to as ‘Land Revenue Rules’
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
Revenue Rules is a Form for certification to be granted for
Building Sites and Holding issued by the Government of
Karnataka. Rule 86 of the Land Revenue Rules stipulates
that the certificate to be granted under Section 154 of the
7
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 shall be in Form 9.
Chapter XIII of the Act contemplates survey and
settlement of lands, and of boundary disputes within the
sites of villages and the limits of towns and cities.
11. In Chapter XIII of the Land Revenue Act,
Sections 148 to 156 are stated. Section 148 of the Act
stipulates ‘limits of sites of villages, towns and cities, how
to be fixed and assignment of building sites’. Section 149
of the Land Revenue Act stipulates regarding disposal of
building sites. Section 150 of the said Act stipulates
regarding existing exemptions to be continued in certain
cases. Section 151 of the Land Revenue Act stipulates
regarding the right to exemption to be determined by the
7
Hereinafter referred to as ‘Land Revenue Act’
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
Deputy Commissioner. Section 152 of the Land Revenue
Act stipulates regarding ‘survey of lands and their
boundaries within sites of villages or the limits of cities and
towns how to be conducted’. Section 153 of the Land
Revenue Act stipulates regarding the procedure in certain
cases of survey under Section 152 and charge of a survey
fee. Section 154 of the Land Revenue Act stipulates cases
in which certificate is to be granted without extra charge.
12. It is clear from the aforementioned statutory
stipulations that Section 154 would be applicable for grant
of certificate without extra charge in respect of a building
site to which a survey is ordered under Section 152.
13. In the present case there is no material on
record to demonstrate as to whether survey has been
ordered as contemplated under Section 152 of the Land
Revenue Act. Under the circumstances, the insistence of
the petitioner for issuance of an occupancy certificate in
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
Form 9 of the Rules is misconceived inasmuch as a
certificate which is Land Revenue to be granted without
charge is only in the event of a survey having been
conducted as per Section 152 of the Land Revenue Act. In
the event a survey has been conducted and a certificate is
to be issued without extra charge, Section 154 would be
applicable, consequent to which in terms of Land Revenue
Rules 86, the requisite certificate that is to be granted
under Section 154 is to be issued in Form 9.
14. It is not the case of the petitioner that a survey
as contemplated under Section 152 of the Act having been
conducted, a certificate as contemplated under Section
154 of the Act is to be issued without charge in accordance
with Rule No. 86 of the Rules in Form 9.
15. On the contrary the petitioner seeks for an
occupancy certificate to be granted. A perusal of Para
No.11 of the order dated 03.11.2024 passed in
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
WP.No.105498/2026 discloses that the sanction plan was
granted on 28.04.2020. However, there is no material on
record in the writ petition to indicate that authority which
granted the said sanction plan. The petitioner has merely
sought for a direction to the respondent No.4 -
Municipality to issue the occupancy certificate. However,
the petitioner has sought for the same both under the
provisions of the Land Revenue Act together with Land
Revenue Rules as also the Karnataka Municipalities Act,
8
1964 and Rules.
16. In this context, it is to be noticed from a
perusal of the order dated 24.02.2025 that the Division
Bench of this Court, while considering IA.No.1/2025 in
CCC.No.100203/2024 noticed the stand of respondent
No.4 - Commissioner of City Municipality Ranebennur, that
occupancy certificate in Form 9 under the Land Revenue
Act and Rules will have to be decided after hearing the
8
Hereinafter referred to as 'Municipalities Act'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
jurisdictional Tahsildar and that respondent No.4 -
Commissioner in the said proceedings can at best ensure
that the PT sheet and CTS extracts are made over to the
Tahsildar. Subsequently, the said PT sheets and CTS
extracts of the subject property were placed on record in
CCC.No.100203/2024. It was further submitted on behalf
of respondent No.4 - Commissioner that the subject
property is within the Ranebennur City Municipal Limits
and the municipality is shown as the owner of the land.
But the rights of the complainants - petitioners herein are
also noted. The Division Bench also noticed the stand of
respondent No.4 that the application in Form 9 will have to
be considered by the jurisdictional Tahsildar.
17. The Division Bench after noticing the contention
of the learned counsel for respondent No.4 -Commissioner
disposed of the said application. The relevant portion of
the order is extracted at para 6 hereinabove.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
18. The petitioners in the present writ petition have
assailed various endorsements issued by respondent No.4,
whereunder the request of the petitioners for issuance of
occupancy certificate in Form 9 has not been acceded to.
The petitioners have also produced a circular dated
26.03.2024 (Annexure-C1 to the writ petition),
whereunder guidelines for issuing occupancy
certificates/completion certificates for buildings sanctioned
by urban local bodies issued by the Government of
Karnataka. The said sanction is issued for occupancy
certificates to be granted pursuant to permission for
development of buildings under the provisions of the
Karnataka Municipalities Act.
19. In this regard, it is to be noticed that Section
187 of the Municipalities Act, stipulates that before
beginning of any construction of any building, permission
is to be obtained from the Municipal Council. Section 180
of the Municipalities Act stipulates that no person shall
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
construct or reconstruct a building without the permission
of the Municipal Council under Section 187 of the
Municipalities Act. Further, the power to regulate the
buildings is provided to the municipality under the
provisions of the Municipalities Act.
20. The respondent No.4 - Commissioner has the
authority to exercise power under the provisions of the
Municipalities Act and not for issuance of certificate in
Form 9 as contemplated under the provisions of the Land
Revenue Act.
21. It is the contention of the petitioners that the
endorsements issued by respondent No.4 - Commissioner
are contrary to earlier orders passed by this Court in
WP.No.105498/2022 as well as in CCC.No.100196/2025.
It is clear and forthcoming from the perusal of the orders
passed in WP.No.105498/2022 as well as in
CCC.No.100196/2025 that this Court has not in any
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
manner directed issuance of occupancy certificate in Form
9 as stipulated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by
respondent No.4 - Commissioner.
22. It is to be noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2024 passed in
WP.No.105498/2026 had inter-alia at Para No. (vii) of the
operative portion of its order directed the Municipality to
process the application for issuance of the sanction plan,
commencement certificate, occupancy certificate in terms
of the applicable law.
23. Vide communication dated 21.01.2026
(Annexure-L to the writ petition) the respondent No.4 has
rightly refused to furnish the occupancy certificate in Form
9 of the Land Revenue Rules. Further in the
communication dated 24.07.2026 (Annexure-F to the writ
petition) also cannot be faulted since vide the said
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18396
WP No. 100938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020022852026
communication the petitioner was intimated that certificate
in Form 9 of the Land Revenue Rules cannot be issued.
24. In view of the aforementioned, no fault could
be found with respondent No.4 - Commissioner in issuing
the endorsements which are impugned in the present writ
petition.
25. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
disposed of
directing respondent No.4 - Municipality to
consider the application of the petitioner for grant of
occupancy certificate in terms of the relevant statutory
provisions, reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail
appropriate substantive remedies in accordance with law.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
Pmp/yan/Pnv
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1