Sri L Daniel Vs the Commissioner

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO.DA(S)W92/KTR/104/23-24 ISSUED BY 3^RD RESPONDENT I.E. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER (WARD NO.92), SHIVAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, ON 19.10.2024, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.DA(S)W92/KTR/104/23-24 dated 19.10.2024 issued by respondent No.3.

¶26

The petitioner contends that he is the owner of property bearing No.100 (Old No.68) situate at Seppings Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru having purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 31.05.2013. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 for transfer of Khata to his name. Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 20.01.2024 referring to objections filed by respondent No.4, who claimed a share in the property and stated that he had filed O.S.No.26615/2023, in which an order

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50210 WP No. 26766 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

of interim injunction restraining the alienation of the property was granted. Aggrieved by the endorsement dated 20.01.2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 25.07.2024 before respondent No.2 under Section 114A of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Respondent No.3 thereafter issued another endorsement dated 19.10.2024 reiterating the contents of the earlier endorsement. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 19.10.2024 approached this Court challenging the same. has

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶31

respondent No.2 has not considered the review petition. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 has issued an endorsement dated 19.10.2024 identical to the endorsement dated 20.01.2024 which is the subject of an appeal before respondent No.2. He therefore submits that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.3 be quashed and a direction be issued to respondent No.2 to consider the review petition.

¶32

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶33

submits that if the petitioner has filed a review petition, the same would be considered in accordance with law.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:50210 WP No. 26766 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

A perusal of the endorsement dated 20.01.2024 shows that respondent No.3 rejected the request of the petitioner for transfer of Khata of the aforesaid property on the ground that an order of injunction was granted in O.S.No.26615/2023. The said endorsement was challenged by petitioner before respondent No.2 and the same is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 issued another endorsement dated 19.10.2024 pursuant to a communication dated 25.07.2024 from the office of respondent No.2, again rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that O.S.No.26615/2023 is pending consideration and that until the said suit is disposed off, the Khata cannot be transferred in favour of the petitioner.

¶38

In view of the fact that the endorsement dated 20.01.2024 is challenged by the petitioner before respondent No.2, respondent No.3 could not have issued another endorsement on 19.10.2024 identical to the one earlier issued.

¶39

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed off .

¶40

The subsequent endorsement dated 19.10.2024 issued by respondent No.3 is quashed as a similar endorsement dated

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50210 WP No. 26766 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

20.01.2024 is pending consideration before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose off the review petition filed by the petitioner under Section 114A of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of 10 days from today.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

HJ

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri L Daniel v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri L Daniel v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dilip G Jain, Vs the Chief Commissioner

Shiva Prasad Bhat Vs the Authorized Officer

Sri T Thimme Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. S.P Nandishkumar Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Shruthi Jois Vs Mysuru City Corporation

Sri N M Tulasi Ram Vs the State of Karnataka