SATTURU MARULASIDDAPPA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved of the impugned endorsement dtd. 3/4/2023 at Annexure-F.

(2.) On going through the impugned endorsement, this Court finds that the petitioner had raised an objection in the matter of grant of E-katha in favour of the 2nd respondent, who is the neighbouring property owner. The petitioner has raised an objection that the 1st respondent - Davanagere Mahanagara Palike, could not have shown measurement of the property of the 2nd respondent as 22.7' x 52.6'. Nevertheless, it appears that the E-katha has been registered in favour of the 2nd respondent showing the said measurement in the assessment list maintained by the 1st respondent - Corporation.

(3.) When this Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why no dispute was raised in terms of the Sec. 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1964, learned counsel submits that such a revision petition was indeed presented to the Deputy Commissioner. However, the same was not even registered.