Smt. Saritha Kumari B v Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. Saritha Kumari B v Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the writ petition was disposed of on the terms that the rejection of khatha transfer stands justified, with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 afresh after adjudication of the civil disputes, whereupon appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 15.07.2023 of respondent No.3 rejecting transfer of khatha is liable to be quashed as having been passed without conducting the enquiry directed in WP No.11069/2021 and without hearing the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order issued by respondent No.3 rejecting the khatha transfer is therefore justified, and the prayer to quash it fails.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the admitted position and the admitted litigation between the parties, respondent No.3 could not have taken any decision as to whether the petitioner alone is entitled to get her name entered in the property register.

Key takeaways

Once the pending disputes are properly adjudicated by the civil Court, the petitioner may approach respondent No.3 with a request to enter her name in the khatha, and respondent No.3 shall then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Khatha transfer - BBMP - Assistant Revenue Officer (respondent No.3) rejected by order dated 15.07.2023 (No.DA/VA/24/PR/389/2018-19, Annexure-H2) the petitioner's request for entry of her name in the khatha register for a BDA-allotted site conveyed to her by sale deed dated 06.12.2018 following succession certificate in P & SC No.4/2018. An earlier endorsement dated 01.06.2019 had been quashed in WP No.11069/2021 with a direction to reconsider after hearing respondent Nos.4 and 5; the reconsideration ended in rejection in view of pending civil suits (OS No.433/2019, OS No.762/2019, OS No.7267/2019) and Miscellaneous Petition No.11/2022 challenging the succession certificate. Held: in view of the admitted litigation among rival claimants, respondent No.3 could not decide that the petitioner alone was entitled to entry in the property register; the impugned order is justified; writ petition under Article 226 disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to seek khatha entry afresh after adjudication of the disputes by the civil Court, whereupon respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Single Judge: R. Nataraj; decided 10.11.2025.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 15.07.2023 passed by respondent No.3 in No.DA/VA/24/PR/389/2018-19 (Annexure-H2) rejecting the petitioner's prayer for transfer of khatha.¶21
Assistant Revenue Officer, HBR Sub Division, BBMP (respondent No.3) · 15.07.2023
Prior proceeding
Site was allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority to Sri.H.Siddaiah, who died intestate on 11.04.2000; petitioner claims she was adopted by him on 22.06.1984.¶29
Prior proceeding
Succession certificate issued in favour of the petitioner in P & SC No.4/2018.¶29
Prior proceeding
Bangalore Development Authority executed sale deed dated 06.12.2018 conveying the site to the petitioner.¶29
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied on 10.12.2018 for transfer of khatha; representations dated 31.05.2019, 18.07.2019 and 05.08.2019 drew no action from respondent Nos.2 and 3.¶32
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.5 filed objections against khatha transfer, stating he had filed suit in OS No.762/2019 for partition and separate possession.¶32
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 issued endorsement dated 01.06.2019 rejecting the petitioner's application; challenged in WP No.11069/2021.¶33
Prior proceeding
This Court allowed WP No.11069/2021, quashed the endorsement dated 01.06.2019 and directed respondent No.3 to reconsider the application after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5.¶33
Prior proceeding
Reconsideration proceedings before respondent No.3 ran from 26.12.2022 through multiple adjournments (05.01.2023, 18.01.2023, 21.06.2023, 03.07.2023, 10.07.2023, 14.07.2023) with repeated absences of the parties.¶38
Prior proceeding
Per the petitioner, OS No.433/2019 was filed by one Sri.Nataraj.H.N. against her for specific performance, with no injunction restraining respondent No.3 from transferring the khatha; likewise OS No.762/2019 contained no such injunction.¶43
Prior proceeding
Per the petitioner's contention, respondent No.3 opined that the order in P & SC No.4/2018 had to be honoured as P & SC No.243/2001 filed by Sri.Veerabhadraiah was dismissed, yet did not enter her name in the property register.¶44
Prior proceeding
Per respondent No.4, Sri.H.Siddaiah's brothers and sisters (class II heirs) filed OS No.7267/2019 challenging the succession certificate and seeking declaration of rights over the deceased's estate.¶49
Prior proceeding
Per respondent No.4, Miscellaneous Petition No.11/2022 was also filed challenging the validity of the succession certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.¶50
Prior proceeding
Per respondent No.4, OS No.762/2019 filed by the petitioner's brother carries an interim injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating or encumbering the property.¶53
Prior proceeding
After the reconsideration hearings, the final order dated 15.07.2023 was passed rejecting the petitioner's prayer for transfer of khatha (the impugned order).¶42