The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging the registration of a property khatha in new owners' names. The Court held that authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes but recorded that the registration stands subject to the pending outcome of review filings before this Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.1268 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.F.M. UMMER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE FAREED, R/AT NO.38, 11TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560027
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESHA H.E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT 55/2, 1ST FLOOR, NANJAPPA ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027
NOW RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.G-3,. GROUND FLOOR, EXPRESS RESIDENCY APARTMENT, BASAPPA ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.05.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER ON APPEAL NO.JC(EAST)/KMC/114A/33/2018-19 DATED 26.03.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST), BBMP, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-P IS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME AND RESTORE THE KATHA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 in a proceeding under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as "the KMC Act, 1976" for short) concerning the sites bearing Municipal Nos.27 and 28 of Akkitimmanahalli, Bangiyappa Garden, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru, lying within the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) ward No.117.
belonged to his father, who executed a Hiba dated 25.01.1990. The petitioner filed O.S.No.1226/1998 against his father and Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession and not to change the khatha in favour of the petitioner's father. It is stated that the petitioner and his family members settled the issue and submitted a Compromise Petition in the aforesaid suit. Later, the father of the petitioner is stated to have
4
executed sale deeds dated 22.09.1999 and 20.10.1999 in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. The petitioner filed O.S.No.7669/1999 and O.S.No.8082/1999 challenging the sale deeds executed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. The said suits were dismissed, against which RFA Nos.2049/2012 and 2050/2012 are filed and the same are pending consideration before this Court. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 sought to get the khatha registered in their names in respect of the aforesaid sites. The respondent No.3 considering that the father of the petitioner had conveyed the said sites to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 transferred the khatha of the aforesaid sites to the names of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid, filed a Review Petition before the respondent No.2 under Section 114A of the KMC Act, 1976. The respondent No.2 after considering the fact that there was no stay in RFA Nos.2049/2012 and 2050/2012, dismissed the Review Petition and upheld the khatha that was made out in the names of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. Being
5
aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner is before this Court.
6
nothing remained to be considered and therefore, the respondent No.3 was justified in transferring the khatha of the sites in question to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the respondent No.2 was justified in rejecting the Review Petition filed by the petitioner.
7
view of the fact that the suits filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.7669/1999 and O.S.No.8082/1999 were dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
PMR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Registrar of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike was justified in registering the khatha in the names of the new owners pending the outcome of civil suits challenging the sale deeds.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order dismissing the writ petition challenging the khatha registration.
Whether the subsequent status of the khatha registration is subject to the pending result of review filings before this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Shantamma vs. Bangalore Mahanagar Palike and othersDistinguished¶3
Smt. Shantamma vs. Bangalore Mahanagar Palike and others [(2005) 1 KLJ 63]
Sri. P.K. Somashekar Reddy and another vs. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore and othersDistinguished¶3
Sri. P.K. Somashekar Reddy and another vs. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore and others [2020 (2) KCCR 1497]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. S.F.M. UMMER
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) BBMP
THE ASST.REVENUE OFFICER SHANTHI NAGAR RANGE
SRI. MOHAN L RAHEJA
SMT. NEETA M RAHEJA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
