Smt M Nalinakshi Vs Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

SMT. M. NALINAKSHI DAUGHTER OF LATE AKKAYAMMA WIFE OF R. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NO. 49 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 7^TH CROSS NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, B. NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560037.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BBMP WARD NO. 4 YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2, THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP, YELAHANKA TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.11.2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43507 WP No. 18920 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ANNEXURE-L TO THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION WITHIN A TIME BOUND PERIOD AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider her representation dated 29.11.2023 and register the khata in her name in respect of the site No.1131 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 55.6 feet situate at Judicial layout, Jakkur, Yelahanka (henceforth referred to as ‘the petition schedule property’). She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to enter her name in the municipal records.

¶26

The petitioner claims that she and her family members are the owners of the land measuring 26 ½ guntas out of 1 Acre 13 guntas in Sy. No.104/2 of Allalasandra village, Yelahanka hobli. She claims that at a partition between her father, grandfather and Sri Hanumanthappa, her father was allotted 26½ guntas. The Karnataka State Judicial Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society was attempting to form a

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43507 WP No. 18920 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

layout which compelled the petitioner and her family members to file a suit in O.S. No.9483/1998. In the said suit, a compromise was entered into on 04.01.2000 which came to be accepted by the Court on 06.01.2000. In terms of the compromise, five sites were allotted to the petitioner and her family members. She contends that a site bearing No.1131 was bequeathed to her in terms of a Will dated 21.06.2018 executed by Smt. Akkayyamma which was probated in P and S.C No.43/2020 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. Thus, she claims that she is the full and absolute owner of the aforesaid site. She claims that an application dated 29.11.2023 was filed before respondent No.2 for transferring the khata of the aforesaid property which was not considered by the respondent No.2. She claims that she has paid the up-to-date property tax and a shed is also constructed on the property which is serviced with electricity. She claims that she is in possession of the property and therefore, the respondent No.2 was bound to enter her name in the Municipal records, which was not done. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:43507 WP No. 18920 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the name of the owner of an adjacent plot is entered in the municipal records and therefore, the respondent No.2 has no reason as to why the said benefit should not be extended to the petitioner.

¶34

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the question whether the layout plan was sanctioned in favour of the Karnataka State Judicial Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society (for short, ‘the Society’) was in issue in W.P. No.7863/2021 and that a coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 22.09.2023, had allowed the writ petition. He contends that an appeal is filed in W.A. No.26/2024 and therefore, until the said appeal is disposed off, there can be no direction to the respondents to effect the khata of the property in question in favour of the petitioner.

¶35

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the plan sanctioned in favour of the Society was

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43507 WP No. 18920 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

cancelled by the State Government in terms of an order dated 22.09.2020 following which the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had issued appropriate endorsements intimating the Society about the cancellation. This was challenged before this Court in W.P No.7863/2021. A coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 22.09.2023, allowed the writ petition and held that the Society is entitled for approval and sanction of the layout plan and also set at nought the Government order dated 22.09.2020 and the consequent communications addressed by the BDA to the Society. It is not in dispute that this order is under challenge in appeal in W.A. No.26/2024. Therefore, unless the issue is put to rest, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to register her name in the Municipal records. Accordingly, no direction can be issued to the respondents until disposal of W.A No.26/2024.

¶40

The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms.

¶41

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶42

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Smt M Nalinakshi v. Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M Nalinakshi v. Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mangala Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Sri Balaji Electronics Vs the Arsikere Town

Dr Nalini Parameshwara Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri B.J. Jagadish Vs the Chief Secretary

Mrs P Kalavathi Vs the State Election Commission

Smt. Sushilamma Vs the State of Karnataka