Allowed¶45

Mr. Aslam Zackria Sait v. the Assistant Revenue Officer

Municipal khatha/e-khatha transfer – probated Will

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025WP/33354/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC single-judge writ (LB-BMP) on BBMP/GBA e-khatha transfer refusal; keywords: e-khatha, khatha transfer, property register, khatedar, probate, Will, relinquishment deed, right of residence, mandamus, Articles 226 & 227, Assistant Revenue Officer Shanthalanagar, Municipal No.9 Museum Road Bengaluru, P & SC No.119/2024, Justice R. Nataraj, two-month compliance direction; no precedents cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to enter the petitioner's name in the property register and issue the e-khatha in respect of premises bearing Municipal No.9, Museum Road, Bangalore - 560 001, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶45

Mr. Aslam Zackria Sait Vs the Assistant Revenue… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities could insist on a registered relinquishment deed from the sister of the deceased (and otherwise stall the process) despite the Will executed by the registered khatedar having been probated, and whether the petitioner is consequently entitled to entry of his name in the property register and issuance of the e-khatha.

¶36

Court's answer

Since the khatha stood in the name of Mr. Phylee Minoo Maneckjee, who executed a Will in favour of the petitioner that was probated by the Court, the respondents cannot go behind the probate granted by the Court.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The probate granted by the Court shows that the sister of Mr. Phylee Minoo Maneckjee had filed an affidavit admitting the lawful execution of the Will, so the respondents cannot question the probate.

¶41

Key takeaways

Being unable to go behind the probate, the respondents are bound to take steps to enter the name of the petitioner in the property register and issue the e-khatha by considering his application.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Municipal khatha/e-khatha transfer — probated Will — BBMP cannot go behind probate. The petitioner purchased 1,815 sq ft of Municipal No.9, Museum Road, Bengaluru by sale deed dated 15.10.2004; the owner-khatedar, Mr. Phylee Minoo Maneckjee, executed a Will dated 23.12.2022 bequeathing the remaining portion to him and died on 06.07.2023. After probate in P & SC No.119/2024, BBMP endorsements (03.05.2025 and 03.06.2025) demanded the deceased's death certificate, a Tahsildar-attested family tree and a registered relinquishment deed from the deceased's sister, and the petitioner's online e-khatha application of 01.09.2025 went unconsidered. Holding that where the khatha stood in the deceased's name and his Will stands probated — the probate recording the sister's affidavit admitting lawful execution — the authorities cannot go behind the probate and are bound to act on it, the Court allowed the writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 and directed respondent No.1 to enter the petitioner's name in the property register and issue the e-khatha within two months.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:45003 WP No. 33354 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33354 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. ASLAM ZACKRIA SAIT S/O LATE MR. HASIM SAIT AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 6/4, 3RD FLOOR, MARTELLO BOULEVARD, M.G.ROAD, MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SUMAN K S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER SHANTHALANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBMP PRESENTLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF GBA, BENGALURU CENTRAL 12TH FLOOR,

¶13

PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶14

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BBMP EAST ZONE PRESENTLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OFF GBA, BENGALURU CENTRAL PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶15

THE BBMP COMMISSIONER PRESENTLY WITH THE LIMITS OFF GBA, BENGALURU CENTRAL HUDSON CIRCLE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:45003 WP No. 33354 of 2025

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560002.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE ONLINE DIGITAL E-KHATHA TRANSFER APPLICATION DATED 1ST SEPTEMBER 2025 (ANNX-A) FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ISSUE THE E-KHATHA CERTIFICATE STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHIN A TIME FRAME TO BE FIXED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT OR WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL ORDER.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his online digital khatha transfer application dated 01.09.2025 and issue the e-khatha certificate in his name with respect to schedule property.

¶26

(i) The petitioner contends that one Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee was the owner of a property bearing Municipal No.9 measuring 4,439 square feet, situated at Museum Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. He executed a sale deed dated 15.10.2004 in favour of the petitioner conveying 1,815 square feet out of 4,439 square feet. He thereafter executed a Will dated 23.12.2022, bequeathing the remaining portion of the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:45003 WP No. 33354 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

aforesaid property. The name of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee appeared in the property register maintained by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. The said Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee died on 06.07.2023.

¶31

(ii) It appears that petitioner had in the meanwhile obtained a probate of the Will executed by Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee in P & SC No.119/2024. He then approached the respondent No.1 by an application dated 02.05.2025 for issuance of e-khatha. However, the respondent No.1 issued an endorsement dated 03.05.2025 directing the petitioner to produce the death certificate of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee and his sister and a family tree of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee duly attested by the Tahsildar.

¶32

(iii) Later, the petitioner submitted a representation on 13.05.2025 to transfer the khatha and issue the e-khatha in the name of the petitioner. On 03.06.2025, the respondent No.1 issued an endorsement directing the petitioner to obtain and produce a registered relinquishment deed from the sister of Late.Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee. The petitioner then filed an application online for issuance of digital e-khatha on

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45003 WP No. 33354 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

01.09.2025. Since the same is not considered, the petitioner is before the Court.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a beneficiary of a will executed by one Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee, who was the registered khatedar of the property and therefore, the respondents could not have dug into the issue further by calling upon the petitioner to produce the relinquishment deed from the sister of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee. He contends that the Will executed by Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee is probated and therefore, the lawful execution of the Will is proved and no one has challenged the probate granted. He therefore contends that the respondents cannot sit over the judgment and decree of the District Court granting probate and they are bound to enter the name of the petitioner in the property register and issue the e-khatha.

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that under the Will executed in favour of the petitioner, the sister of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee was reserved the right of residence until her death. He therefore

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45003 WP No. 33354 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

contends that the respondents were justified in calling upon the petitioner to obtain a relinquishment deed.

¶41

It is relevant to note that the khatha of the property in question stood in the name of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee and he purportedly executed a Will in favour of the petitioner, which was probated by the Court. Therefore, the respondents cannot go behind the probate granted by the Court. The probate granted by the Court shows that the sister of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee had filed an affidavit admitting the lawful execution of the Will. If that be so, the respondents cannot go behind the probate granted by the Court and they are bound to take steps to enter the name of the petitioner in the property register and issue the e-khatha by considering his application.

¶42

In that view of the matter, the following order is

¶43

passed:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The petition is allowed .

¶46

ii. The respondent No.1 is directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the property register and issue the e-khatha showing the name of the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:45003 WP No. 33354 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

petitioner in respect of the bearing Municipal No.9, Museum Road, Bangalore - 560 001, within a period two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Mr. Aslam Zackria Sait v. the Assistant Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Aslam Zackria Sait v. the Assistant Revenue Officer

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

Smt Lokeshwari Vs Smt Saraswathamma

Mr Manjunath Vs the Executive Officer

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Kirloskar Electric Company Employees Housing Co. Op Society (Regd.)

Sri.H.R.Nagaraja Setty Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the Town Panchayath

M/S.D K Agencies Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike