Dismissed¶41

Sri. Mohammed Rafiz v. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2025WP/14596/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata/Khatha registration by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP); registered document or court decree/instrument having force of law required for Khata on transfer of title; unregistered sale deed; possession since 1960; rival claimant T.Sonnappa; eviction proceedings under Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 dismissed; declaratory decree as route to Khata change; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution; WP No. 14596 of 2021 (LB-BMP); NC: 2025:KHC:1366; decided 13 January 2025 by Justice N S Sanjay Gowda; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

To register a Khata, the BBMP can entertain a claim only if it is based on a registered document in cases of transfer of title. ¶35

Sri. Mohammed Rafiz Vs Bangalore Mahanagara Palike — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities (BBMP) are bound to consider and register the Khata in favour of the petitioner, who claims possession since 1960 under an unregistered sale deed, in the absence of a registered document of title. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

To register a Khata, the BBMP can entertain a claim only if it is based on a registered document in cases of transfer of title.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

So long as there is no registered document, the BBMP is not empowered to register the Khata in favour of a claimant unless there is a decree of the Court or some other instrument having the force of law which confers right, title on the applicant.

¶35

Key takeaways

Possession for the past 40 years and rival claims repelled by the civil court do not themselves found a Khata; it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and obtain an appropriate decree declaring him owner of the property, on which decree the BBMP would be bound to change the Khata.ratio¶36
Until the petitioner obtains such a declaratory decree, his claim for Khatha cannot be entertained by the BBMP.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Khata registration — BBMP (Bengaluru). Held: in cases of transfer of title, the BBMP can entertain a claim for registration of Khata only if based on a registered document; absent a registered document, the BBMP is not empowered to register the Khata unless there is a decree of the Court or some other instrument having the force of law conferring right and title on the applicant. The petitioner's claimed possession since 1960 under an unregistered sale deed, and the dismissal of rival eviction proceedings initiated by T.Sonnappa under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (and later by Sonnappa's wife, dismissed as withdrawn), do not dispense with this requirement. The petitioner was left free to approach the appropriate forum for a declaratory decree of ownership; upon obtaining such a decree the BBMP would be bound to change the Khata, but until then the claim for Khatha cannot be entertained. Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution dismissed accordingly. — N S Sanjay Gowda J., 13-01-2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1366 WP No. 14596 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 14596 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIZ S/O LATE SYED YUSUF AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.24, 11TH CROSS SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B R VISWANATH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE REVENUE OFFICER, RANGASWAMY MALLESHWARAM RANGE, B.B.M.P (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) CORPORATION BOYS HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 004.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA N R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:1366 WP No. 14596 of 2021

¶20

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF KATHA AND ALSO REGISTER THE KATHA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The prayer in this petition is for issuance of a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the application for registration of Khata in favour of

¶25

the petitioner.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is based on the fact that he has been in possession of the property in question since 1960. It is the case of the petitioner that an unregistered sale deed was executed in his favor, but subsequently, a rival claim was raised by one T.Sonnappa who had initiated eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and it is contended that the said proceedings were dismissed and it was held that the petitioner was in possession.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:1366 WP No. 14596 of 2021

¶29

It is also contended that after the death of Sonnappa, his wife filed one more petition for eviction and that was also dismissed as withdrawn. It is therefore contented that there is a clear declaration that the petitioner is the owner of the property. Consequently, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘ BBMP' ) is bound to register the Khata in his favour.

¶30

It is also argued that right from the initiation of proceedings by Sonnappa and even before this Court, the fact that the petitioner is in possession remains undisputed.

¶31

It is contended that since Sonnappa himself had sought for eviction, the factum of the previous possession was admitted. It is also stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court directing a spot inspection be conducted, the BBMP also has acknowledged that the petitioner has been in possession and therefore, it was just and necessary

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:1366 WP No. 14596 of 2021

¶34

that a direction be issued to the BBMP to issue Khata in favour of the petitioner.

¶35

It is to be stated that in order to register the Khata, the BBMP can entertain a claim only if it is based on a registered document in cases of transfer of title. So long as there is no registered document, the BBMP would not be empowered to register the Khata in favour of a claimant, unless there is a decree of the Court or some other instrument having the force of law which confers right, title on the applicant.

¶36

Since it is contended that the petitioner has been in possession for the past 40 years and rival claims have been repelled by the civil court, it will be open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and obtain an appropriate decree declaring that he is the owner of the property. On such a decree being obtained, obviously the BBMP would be bound

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:1366 WP No. 14596 of 2021

¶39

to change the Khata, but, until then, the petitioner’s

¶40

claim for Khatha cannot be entertained.

¶41