Karnataka HC Quashes Endowments Department’s Bar on Woman’s Site Approval, Directs Sub-Registrar to Consider Registration request

The petitioner purchased Site No. 63 in a layout formed on lands in Sy. Nos. 133 and 137 at Kadukarenahalli (Kurubarahalli), after the lands had been granted occupancy rights, converted for non-agricultural use, and sold through registered conveyances.

When she sought an E-khata, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department, issued a letter dated 20 April 2021 directing that no permission or approval be granted for sites formed in the specified survey numbers, referring to a gift deed executed in 1939 by Smt. Dwarakabai Vedantham.

The petitioner sought to quash the letter insofar as it affected her site and requested registration of documents relating to it.

She relied on a coordinate-bench decision in W.P. No. 5111/2022, which had quashed similar endorsements; the State did not dispute that decision.

The Court relied on the coordinate-bench ruling in W.P. No. 5111/2022, which held that where occupancy rights had been granted under the Mysore Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1954, prior rights asserted under a 1939 gift deed stood extinguished upon vesting of the lands in the Government free of encumbrances and the subsequent grant of occupancy rights; the occupancy-rights order, having attained finality, bound the party asserting the gift deed.

On that basis, the coordinate bench held that an endorsement refusing an NOC lacked authority of law and that no such NOC was required.

The lands in that case had also been converted for residential use under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

The present petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Commissioner’s letter affected the petitioner’s site by prohibiting permission or approval for the relevant survey numbers.

The Court noted that a coordinate bench had quashed materially similar endorsements on the ground that the earlier gift-deed claim could not override final occupancy-rights grants under the 1954 Act, and that the State did not dispute the coordinate-bench ruling.

Applying that reasoning, the Court held that the impugned letter could not be sustained insofar as it related to the petitioner.

As to registration, the Court directed the Sub-Registrar to consider the petitioner’s request; it did not direct registration unconditionally.

The Sub-Registrar was directed to consider her request for registration of documents relating to Site No. 63 at Kadukarenahalli (Kurubarahalli).