Partly allowed

Mrs. Geeta Sanjay Vhatkar v. the Joint Commissioner (Mahadevapura Zone)

Karnataka HC28 May 2024WP/1012/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition quashing a BBMP order rejecting a khata registration claim. Court held the Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by questioning a civil court decree and gift deed validity. Case remitted for reconsideration under the BBMP Act, 2020, ensuring affected site owners are heard.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.10.2022 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority to reconsider the appeal under the BBMP Act, 2020.

Mrs. Geeta Sanjay Vhatkar Vs the Joint Commissioner… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. GEETA SANJAY VHATKAR W/O MR SANJAY B VHATKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.202, HARSHA BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, RAHEJA BUILDING 7TH BUNGLOW, VARSOWA ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI-400061 REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR B PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O V BHASKARAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AT NO.130/1, ULSOOR ROAD BANGALORE-560042

¶9

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (MAHADEVAPURA ZONE) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD RHB COLONY, MAHADEVAPURA BANGALORE -560048

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶16

THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD RHB COLONY, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALRU-560048

¶17

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE PARASHURAMAPPA R/A JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TLAUK BANGALORE-560035

¶18

SMT LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE PARASHURAMAPPA R/A JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560035

¶19

SMT KAVEERAMMA D/O LATE PARASHURAMAPPA R/A JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560035

¶20

SRI CHANDRA S/O LATE PARASHURAMAPPA R/A JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560035

¶21

SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE PARASHURAMAPPA

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶23

R/A JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560035

¶24

SRI VENKATARAMANA S/O LATE PARASHURAMAPPA R/A JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560035

¶25

SRI SOMESH S/O LATE PARASHURAMAPPA R/A JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560035

¶26

SRI. K.V. KUPPA RAJU

¶27

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY RAJU R/A NO.281, 8^TH MIAN ROAD DOLLARS COLONY J.P.NAGAR, 4^TH PHASE BENGALURU-560078.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R9 SRI. K.K. VASANTH., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R10)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (MAHADEVAPURA ZONE), BBMP, BENGALURU, R1 HEREIN IN

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶33

APPEAL NO.5/2019-20 AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD 12.10.2022 ANNEXURE-Y PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (MAHADEVAPURA ZONE), BBMP, BENGALURU, R1 HEREIN IN APPEAL NO.5/2019-20 AND ETC.,

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶37

Although this matter is coming up for “Hearing – Interlocutory Application’, with the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶38

The petitioner who is said to have acquired

¶39

right, title and interest under a registered Gift Deed dated 09.12.2016 is aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-Y dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru in the matter of transfer of khata.

¶40

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar.S.Patil, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s brother Sri Ravi Puravankara entered into

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶42

Agreements of Sale dated 03.11.1994 and 29.10.1994 with the original land owners, respondents No.3 to 9 herein for purchasing 5 acres of land in Sy.No.26/1 to 26/9, all situated at Junnasandra Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the entire 5 acres of land were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes by way of 9 different orders passed by the competent authority during the year 1995-96, the details of which are also given in paragraph No.6 in the writ petition. When the original land owners did not come forward to execute the sale deeds in favour of Sri Ravi Puravankara, the said Sri Ravi Puravankara filed original suits in O.S.Nos.862/1996; 921/1996; 1003/1996; 1004/1996; 1005/1995; 1006/1996 and 1007/1996 before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District seeking specific performance of the contract. The suits were decreed by way of a judgment dated 10.06.2006. Thereafter execution case was filed by Sri Ravi Puravankara and consequently the court executed seven sale deeds in

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶44

favour of Sri Ravi Puravankara on 14.08.2009. Thereafter Sri Ravi Puravankara executed a registered Gift Deed dated 09.12.2016 in favour of the petitioner, who is none other than the sister of Sri Ravi Puravankara conveying the entire extent of 5 acres to the petitioners. Consequent to the execution of the Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the competent authority of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for registration of khata in her name in respect of the schedule properties in terms of the Gift Deed. When the competent authority did not pass any order and when the petitioner insisted that her case for registration of kahta should be considered, the matter was taken up as an appeal at the hands of the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru. The Joint Commissioner has passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on various grounds.

¶45

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar.S.Patil,

¶46

submits that a plain reading of the impugned order clearly

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶49

shows that the Joint Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction. The Joint Commissioner has sought to sit over the judgment and decree passed by the civil court. The Joint Commissioner is of the opinion that although the court executed sale deeds in favour of Sri Ravi Puravankara in the year 2009, nevertheless he did not take actual possession of the suit schedule properties. On the other hand, Sri Ravi Puravankara executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner only in the year 2016 and therefore the delay for seeking transfer of khata was not explained. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in terms of the relevant provision namely Section 114 of the than Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, as and when the title is transferred from the previous khatedar, it would be the bounded duty of the Commissioner to transfer the khata in terms of the registered instruments. Learned Senior Counsel further draws the attention of this court to the impugned order and submits that the Joint Commissioner has gone to the extent of considering the objections raised at the hands of the contesting

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶51

respondents herein, more particularly the impleading applicant Sri K.V.Kupparaju and has held that it is well established principles of law that no Gift Deed is valid, unless the Donor delivers the actual possession of property mentioned in the Gift Deed to the Donee. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submits that it is clear from the plain reading of the impugned order that the Joint Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in considering the judgment and decree passed by the civil court and validity of the Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel for the impleading applicant Sri K.K.Vasanth seeks to submit that although the Joint Commissioner has rightly recorded the objections

¶53

raised at the hands of the impleading applicants herein and rejected the application filed by the petitioner, nevertheless the Joint Commissioner has not formally

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶56

allowed or dismissed the impleading application. Moreover, it is pointed out from the impugned order itself that the original owners executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri K.V.Kupparaju authorizing him to apply for conversion of land, to form a residential layout and to sell

¶57

the sites formed in the layout. Accordingly, Sri K.V.Kupparaju applied for conversion, obtained conversion orders and thereafter he formed a residential layout with the approval from the Doddakannahalli Gram Panchayat and thereafter disposed of several sites and purchasers of

¶58

all the sites have put up construction on their respective sites and the khatas have been registered in their names in the records of the BBMP. In support of such contention,

¶59

the Joint Commissioner has recorded that 26 documents were submitted before the Joint Commissioner on 04.04.2022 to substantiate such contention on behalf of Sri K.V.Kupparaju. The learned Counsel would therefore

¶60

submit that since the khatas are standing in the name of the individual site owners, this Court should not permit the transfer of khata in favour of the petitioner unless an

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶63

opportunity of hearing is given to all such individual site owners in whose favour the khatas have been registered in the records of the BBMP.

¶64

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - BBMP submits that the Joint Commissioner was required to consider the case of the petitioner having regard to the admitted facts that some of the site owners have got residential houses constructed and khatas have been registered in their names. Moreover the original judgment and decree passed by the civil court is under challenge before this Court in RFA Nos.2145/2006; 2146/2006; 2147/2006; 2149/2006 and 2150/2006.

¶65

Heard the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel Sri K.K.Vasanth for the impleading applicant, learned Counsel Sri V.Shivakumar for respondents No.3 to 9 and learned counsel Sri Mallikarjun Reddy, for respondent BBMP and perused the petition papers.

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶68

In the considered opinion of this Court the impugned order cannot be sustained for the following

¶69

reasons:

¶70

(1) It is beyond the powers of the Commissioner to consider the validity of the registered gift deed and to pass comments on the judgment and decree and the sale deed executed by the civil court. The Commissioner cannot consider the validity of the Gift Deed to say whether the Gift Deed is valid or that the Gift Deed is invalid since actual possession of the property was not handed over to the petitioner. On the other hand it was for the contesting respondents, including the impleading applicant Sri K.V.Kupparaju to have obtained any order in their favour at the hands of this Court in the pending Regular First Appeal. No effort is made by the

¶71

12 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶73

contesting respondents or impleading

¶74

applicant to secure any such interim order or direction to maintain status quo regarding khatha at the hands of this court in the pending Regular First Appeal.

¶75

(2) The Commissioner could not have considered the objections raised at the hands of the Sri K.V.Kupparaju since the judgment and decree was passed by the competent civil court in the year 2006 and only thereafter the erstwhile owners are said to have executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri K.V.Kupparaju. At any rate, the Commissioner could not have sat over the judgment and decree passed by the civil court. It is beyond the powers of the Commissioner to make any comments regarding handing over

¶76

possession by the civil court in terms of the

¶77

13 -

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶79

sale deed executed by the court in favour of

¶80

Sri Ravi Purvankara.

¶81

Nevertheless, one aspect of the matter may require reconsideration at the hands of the Commissioner having regard to the findings given by the Joint Commissioner in the impugned order namely khatas have been registered in favour of the individual site owners and many of them have put up construction over the residential sites which have been purchased by them. Here again the Commissioner cannot go into the validity of the sale deeds got executed by the individual site owners. However what is required to be considered is that the khatas have been registered in the name of such individual site owners and therefore they are necessarily be heard before any orders could be passed since it would affect not only their rights in maintaining the khatas in the records of

¶82

the BBMP but also in respect of the possession of the sites.

¶83

Here again, necessary orders will have to be obtained by the erstwhile owners, who are the appellants before this

¶84

14 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶86

court in the pending Regular First Appeals or by any other person who would be affected if the khata is transferred in favour of the petitioner including the impleading applicant and the individual site owners in whose favour the khatas are said to have been registered in the records of the BBMP.

¶87

In that view of the matter this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter has to be reconsidered by the competent authority having regard to the amendment brought to the statute and the statute itself is now called the BBMP Act 2020, while earlier statute governing laws of the municipal corporation was known as the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

¶88

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed-inpart . The impugned order at Annexure-Y dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bangalore is hereby quashed

¶89

and set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the competent authority who is required to consider an appeal

¶90

15 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:17930 WP No. 1012 of 2023

¶92

for registration of khata under the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020. Needless to observe that notices will have to

¶93

be issued to all the kathedars whose names have been recorded in the records of the BBMP as well as the owners of the petition schedule property. The claim of the impleading applicant can also be heard by the competent authority before considering the claim of the petitioner for registration of khata in her name.

¶94

Ordered accordingly.

¶95

Sd/JUDGE

¶96

KLY CT: JL

Mrs. Geeta Sanjay Vhatkar v. the Joint Commissioner (Mahadevapura Zone)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Geeta Sanjay Vhatkar v. the Joint Commissioner (Mahadevapura Zone)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Nanjunde Gowda Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op Societies

Maimuna, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Philomina Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt T a Jagadamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Virajamma Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sansita Holdings Private Limited Vs Ms Shobha Rathnam