Allowed

Mr Harish S v. the Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2024WP/1971/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a BBMP endorsement deferring his Khata transfer application pending decision of an inter se civil dispute with respondents four and five. The Court held authorities must change revenue entries following registered transactions, quashed the endorsement, and directed issuance of Khata after due process.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 02.07.2021 quashed; second respondent directed to issue Khata for subject property after due process; petitioner to file representation within 4 weeks, respondent to consider within

Mr Harish S Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43560 WP No. 1971 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1971 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR HARISH S S/O SRI SWAMY M AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A NO.20, 4^TH MAIN ROAD KALYANANAGARA NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560072.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.HEENA S.A., ADVOCATE SRI. SHARATH S GOGI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶14

N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶15

ASST. REVENUE OFFICER CHANDRA LAYOUT SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU -560 002.

¶16

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:43560 WP No. 1971 of 2023

¶19

WEST ZONE, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 002.

¶20

SRI SWAMY M S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶21

SRI ANAND M S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A NO.20, GROUND FLOOR 4^TH MAIN ROAD, KALYANANAGARA NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560072.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.07.2021 BEARING NO.A.PAAC (ZAA aA/127/PE.N.DGI/31/202122DGI.41/2021-22 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G; DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER TO TRANSFER A KHATA AS PER KHATA TRANSFER APPLICATION DATED 03.06.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-D.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:43560 WP No. 1971 of 2023

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's Endorsement dated 02.07.2021 [Annexure-G]. The second respondent, by this Endorsement, has informed the petitioner that his request for change of Khata will be considered after the inter se dispute with the fourth and fifth respondents is decided in the civil suit.

¶30

The petitioner has filed this application for change in revenue entries [ Khata] for the property bearing No.2520, new PID No.127-WO164-19, Kalyananagara Main Road, Nagarabhavi, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk [the subject property]. The petitioner's application is on the basis of the two registered documents executed by the fourth and fifth respondents who are brothers. The fifth respondent has executed the Gift Deed dated 15.07.2019 transferring his undivided 50% interest in the subject property in favour of the fourth respondent, and the fourth respondent

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:43560 WP No. 1971 of 2023

¶33

simultaneously has executed the subsequent Gift Deed dated 15.07.2019 in favour of the petitioner. The fifth respondent has filed objections to the application contending that the Gift Deeds were executed nominally to enable the petitioner to avail loan and subject to re-transfer by the petitioner.

¶34

It is trite that the authorities must change revenue entries consequent to the registered transaction, and that if any person has a cause against registered transaction, such person must avail appropriate remedy in law and cannot stall the transfer of Khata . Therefore, this Court must intervene and set aside the impugned Endorsement dated 02.07.2021 [Annexure-G] directing the second respondent to issue Khata for the subject property observing that the transfer of the Khata in favour of the petitioner pursuant to this Order would not foreclose any remedy that would otherwise be

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:43560 WP No. 1971 of 2023

¶37

available to the fourth and fifth respondents. Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

[a] The petition is allowed, and the second respondent's impugned Endorsement dated 02.07.2021 [Annexure-G] is quashed directing the second respondent to issue Khata of the subject property in favour of the petitioner after due process.

¶40

[b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file necessary representation, with the second respondent along with a certified copy of this order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof, and the second respondent shall consider the same within the next eight [8] weeks.

¶41

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶42

AN/-

Mr Harish S v. the Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Harish S v. the Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

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

Syeda Zohra Jamal Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Beguraiah Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Control Engineers Vs the Commissioner

S Kumar Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri C N Anantharam Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumbara Sarvajanika Vidyarthi Nilaya Trust Vs the State of Karnataka