Petitioner sought quashing of a BBMP endorsement refusing khatha transfer for his property and a direction to transfer khata to his name. The court dismissed the petition solely on the ground of inordinate, unexplained delay of over six years in approaching the writ 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:32720 WP No. 20484 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 20484 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VIKRAM PRABHAKAR S/O. LATE. B.L.PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/ AT NO.36/1, 'PRABHAKAR MANSION', 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE -560080.
….PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 16.12.2017 VIDE ISSUED BY THE R2 ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA SUB DIVISION, BBMP AS PER ANNEXURE-A DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION, MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR TRANSFER
OF KATHA IN HIS NAME BY ISSUING KATHA CERTIFICATE, KATHA REGISTER EXTRACT OR E-SWATHU/E-KATHA PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY BEARING BBMP KATHA NO. 26/2 IN THE LAND BEARING SY.NO. 26/2 (SAME HAS BEEN DULY CONVERTED FORM AGRICULTURE TO NON - AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE, VIDE O.M. NO. ALN(Y) SR/57/2014-2015 DTD 24.03.2015) MEASURING 20 GUNTAS APPROXIMATELY MEASURING 21780 SQ FEET OR 2023.411 SQ METERS OF NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the endorsement dated 16.12.2017, vide Annexure-A, passed
by the respondent No.2 and also sought for the following prayers:
a ) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned endorsement dated 16.12.2017 vide No. ¸À.PÀA.C.(¦.PÉÊ¥Àæ)/PÉnDgï/ 229/2017-18 issued
by the respondent No.2 Assistant Revenue Officer, Peenya Industrial area Sub Division, BBMP, as per Annexure-A.
b) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents authority to consider the representation, made by the petitioner for transfer of Katha in his name by issuing katha
certificate, Katha Register extract or E-swathu/EKatha pertaining to the petitioner's property bearing BBMP Katha No.26/2 in the land bearing Sy.No.26/2 (same has been duly converted from agriculture to non-agriculture residential purpose, vide O.M.No.ALN(Y)SR/57/ 2014-2015 dated 24.03.2015) measuring 20 guntas approximately measuring 21780 sq feet or 2023.411 sq meters of Nagasandra Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
as under:
The petitioner claims to be the sole and absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of converted land bearing Sy.No.26/2 measuring 20 guntas out of total extent measuring 1 acre 3 guntas situated at Nagasandra Village, Yashwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said land was converted vide official memorandum dated 24.03.2013. The petitioner's vendor Sri.B.M.Srinivasa acquired the land under registered partition deed dated 08.05.2002. The petitioner's vendor got converted the said land into non-agricultural purpose. The said land is under the purview of BBMP, Hegganahalli Sub-Division. The petitioner made a representation before the BBMP
authorities to register his name and property in BBMP records on 23.06.2015. The BBMP passed an order on 20.04.2016, and transferred the khatha in the name of the petitioner's vendor. The petitioner's vendor sold the land in question to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 26.09.2017, and the petitioner submitted an application for transfer of khatha in the name of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement dated 16.12.2017, stating that the land measuring 20 guntas is a single plot and hence there is no provision to transfer the khatha, and the representation made by the petitioners kept pending for consideration. Hence the petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement, filed this writ petition.
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence the endorsement issued to the respondent No.2 is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
within a reasonable time. There is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. T.T. MURALI BABU reported in (2014) 4 SCC
108, at paragraph No.17 has held as under:
"In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
(Emphasis supplied)
NC: 2024:KHC:32720 WP No. 20484 of 2024
Apex Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable
to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
SD/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE
RD
1 issue framed by the court
Is the writ petition filed after a delay of over six years without explanation liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali BabuFollowed¶6
(2014) 4 SCC 108 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikram Prabhakar
The Chief Commissioner BBMP
The Assistant Revenue Officer, Peenya Industrial Area Sub Division, BBMP
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
