Disposed

V.K.Mohammed Afzal v. the Commissioner Bbmp

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024WP/14929/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of a Katha endorsement and entries in their name for a Bengaluru property currently mutated to a sports club. The court declined to direct entries, noting the BBMP had not examined the reasons for the mutation, and directed the Joint Commissioner to verify records and communicate reasons under Section 150 BBMP Act, 2020.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation to Joint Commissioner, BBMP within 4 weeks; Joint Commissioner to examine records, inform reasons and pass orders within 4 months with opportunity to concerned parties.

V.K.Mohammed Afzal Vs the Commissioner Bbmp — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45710 WP No. 14929 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14929 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

V.K.MOHAMMED AFZAL S/O LATE V.K. ABDUL LATIFF, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶7

V K FIYAZ S/O.LATE V.K. ABDUL LATIFF, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.252, BHARATHINGAR, NEAR RAZA MASJID, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. DANAPPA P. PANIBHATE.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BBMP CORPORATION OFFICE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BBMP MAYOHALL, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560051.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:45710 WP No. 14929 of 2021

¶17

THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP SHIVAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, DISPENSIONARY ROAD, WARD NO.79, BENGALURU-560051.

¶18

THE BENGALURU MUSLIMS SPORTS CLUB REPRESENTED BY ITS HON.SECRETARY, NO.166, HAZARATH KAMBAL PASHA ROAD, BENGALURU-560051.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R4; QUASH ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH KATHA CERTIFICATE DATED 11.06.2009 STANDS IN THE NAME OF R5 IN RESPECT OF PID NO.79-120-166 OLD NO.157, NEW NO.166 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH KATHA EXTRACT DATED 11.06.2009 STANDS IN THE NAME OF R5 IN RESPECT OF PID NO.79-120-166 OLD NO.157, NEW NO.166 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-C; ISSUE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION DATED 21.06.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-D SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BROTHER BY V K ABDUL MATEEN AND ISSUE KATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE RESPECT OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF PID NO.79-120166, OLD NO.157, 158, 159, 160 AND 161 NEW NO.59, 60 AND 61 NEW NO.166, PID NO.79-120-166, SITUATED

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:45710 WP No. 14929 of 2021

¶24

AT HAZARATH KAMBAL PASHA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560051.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners assert ownership of the property bearing No.166, Hazarath Kambal Pasha Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, Ward No.92 [ the Subject Property] relying upon the title documents in their father’s name, and the petitioners are aggrieved by the fourth respondent's Endorsement dated 03.07.2021. This Endorsement reads that, many years back as of the date of the Endorsement, the Katha [ revenue entries ] for the Subject Property is made in the name of the Hon'ble Secretary, Bengaluru Muslims Sports Club [ the Sports Club ] and that the petitioners have not produced any document to show that they have acquired interest in the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:45710 WP No. 14929 of 2021

¶31

Subject Property from this Khatedar [the Sports Club] and therefore a request for the revenue entries cannot be considered.

¶32

Sri P P Danappa, the learned counsel for

¶33

the petitioners, submits that the Katha for the Subject Property stood in the name of the petitioners' father but is altered some time back in the name of the Sports Club without any basis; that this Sports Club has not in the proceedings before the second respondent or in the present proceedings placed any record to justify the revenue entries in its favour. The learned counsel canvasses that therefore this Court must quash the impugned Endorsement and direct the second respondent to give the benefit of the revenue entries to the petitioners for the Subject Property.

¶34

Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the first to fourth respondents, is heard in the light of these submissions. The fifth respondent

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:45710 WP No. 14929 of 2021

¶37

is served only through paper publication, and it remains unrepresented. The petitioners have produced the Katha Certificate and Katha Extract as per AnnexuresB and C respectively. These

¶38

Certificate and Extract show, as is stated in the impugned Endorsement dated 03.07.2021, that the revenue entries are in favour of the Sports Club. The petitioners, as against this Endorsement, proposes to

¶39

rely upon the Sale Deed of the year 1932 and Encumbrance Certificate to contend that their Predecessor-in-interest has not executed any document in favour of the Sports Club.

¶40

This Court must observe that the fourth respondent [ the Assistant Revenue Officer ] should have examined its records to verify the reasons for the revenue entries [ Katha ] for the Subject Property in favour of the Sports Club and to inform the petitioners about the reasons for such entries so that the petitioners could work out their remedies in

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:45710 WP No. 14929 of 2021

¶43

accordance with law. This Court, in the present proceedings, cannot direct revenue entries for the Subject Property in favour of the petitioners when the aspects as aforesaid are yet to be examined.

¶44

Further, it remains indisputable that if

¶45

there are unjustified revenue entries, it would be open to be challenged under Section 150 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 and in terms of this provision, the jurisdictional Joint

¶46

Commissioner can examine the circumstances in

¶47

which the revenue entries are made but this jurisdiction is subject to the caveat that the verification must be within a period of five [5] years

¶48

from the date of which the revenue entries are mutated. In the present case, where the fifth respondent has remained absent and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike is not able to place on record the reasons for the entries in favour of the Sports Club, this Court is inclined to direct the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:45710 WP No. 14929 of 2021

¶51

second respondent - the Joint Commissioner, upon receipt of a representation along with the certified copy of this order, to call for records to verify the circumstances in which the revenue entries for the Subject Property is made in favour of the Sports Club and communicate the details to the petitioners. Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

a. The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a certified copy of this order and a representation with the second respondent - the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Mayohall,

¶54

Bengaluru.

¶55

b. The petitioners will be at liberty to file this representation within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:45710 WP No. 14929 of 2021

¶58

c. The second respondent is called upon to verify, examine the records, inform the petitioners the reasons for change

¶59

in Revenue Entries and pass appropriate orders within an outer limit of four [4] months from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶60

d. It is needless to observe that the second respondent shall extend due opportunity to all the concerned.

¶61

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶62

AN/-, RB

V.K.Mohammed Afzal v. the Commissioner Bbmp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Mohammed Afzal v. the Commissioner Bbmp

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

Mr. K. Girish Kumar Naidu Vs the Chief Commissioner of Bbmp

Shruthi B Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Hugh Gerald Mascarenhas Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt Sunandamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B. Eshwaramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Rachana Ranka Vs the State of Karnataka