PRASHANT GANAPATI BHAT Vs. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SIRSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last occasion, this Court has noticed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are denying issuance of form No.III (Katha Certificate) on the ground that the petitioner has not given information regarding handing over of park, open space, road and civic amenity area to the local authority, i.e., Municipality.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is only a owner of a site having purchased the same from the developer. It is not the individual site owners who are required to give information regarding handing over of park, open space, road and civic amenity area etc., to the Municipality. It is the developer who obtained the layout plan and formed the layout who is required to given such information and relinquish the rights over all such area to the local authority in terms of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that while Form No.III is issued to the other site owners, it is sought to be denied unjustly to the petitioner alone. Therefore, this Court has directed the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of the City Municipal Council to either file statement of objections or to file an affidavit of undertaking to issue form No.III to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- Commissioner of City Municipal Council submits that statement of objections have not been filed at the hands of the Commissioner. This would mean that the 2nd respondent-Commissioner would issue form No.III to the petitioner.