Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt. Gangalakshmamma Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Smt. Gangalakshmamma Vs the CommissionerSmt. Gangalakshmamma v. the Commissioner

Disposed¶¶47

Smt. Gangalakshmamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2025WP/599/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; R. Nataraj J. (single Judge); WRIT PETITION NO. 599 OF 2025 (LB-BMP); decided 23.10.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:41862. Gangalakshmamma v. Commissioner BBMP and others — khatha/property tax register entry sought through son deriving under registered will (21.01.2021) and gift deed (04.07.2024); rival objection by executant's wife (25.09.2024); endorsement dated 20.12.2024 directing civil-court remedy upheld; validity of will held beyond municipal adjudication; Full Bench ruling in CN Nagendra Singh, ILR 2002 KAR 2750 relied on; petition disposed of, no relief granted. Keywords: khata transfer, BBMP, property tax register, will, objection, endorsement, mandamus, Articles 226 and 227, civil Court remedy.

What did the court decide?

Since the wife of the alleged executant objects that her husband did not execute the will in favour of Niranjan, the respondents (municipal authorities) cannot adjudicate upon the validity of the will; consequently they were right in directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents (BBMP authorities) could be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.07.2024 and enter her name in the property tax register/khatha, where her claimed title rests on a will whose execution is disputed by the executant's wife.

Court's answer

Since the wife of the alleged executant objects that her husband did not execute the will in favour of Niranjan, the respondents (municipal authorities) cannot adjudicate upon the validity of the will; consequently they were right in directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution — petitioner (widow) sought mandamus directing BBMP Commissioner, Assistant Revenue Officer and Revenue Inspector to consider her representation dated 12.07.2024 and enter her name in the property tax register/khatha — claim founded on will dated 21.01.2021 of Chandrashekar @ Chandrappa in favour of petitioner's son, followed by registered gift deed dated 04.07.2024 — executant's wife Smt. Jayalakshmi objected on 25.09.2024 denying execution of the will; respondent No.2 issued endorsement dated 20.12.2024 directing petitioner to approach the civil Court — Held, municipal authorities cannot adjudicate upon the validity of the will and were right in directing the petitioner to the civil Court, relying on the Full Bench decision in CN Nagendra Singh vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, ILR 2002 KAR 2750 — writ petition disposed of (R. Nataraj, J.).

A

NC: 2025:KHC:41862 WP No. 599 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 599 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE ANANTHARAMU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.205, 14^TH CROSS NELAGADARANAHALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 073.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002.

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 073.

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR BBMP, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 073.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S.,ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41862 WP No. 599 of 2025

HC-KAR

RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/07/2024 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R2. THE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURES-D, D1, D2, D3, D4 , D5 AND D6 TO THE WP.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.07.2024 given by the petitioner requesting to enter her name in the property tax register.

The petitioner contends that she is the widow of Late.Anantharamu and daughter-in-law of Late.Hanumaiah. She contends that there was a partition in the year 1989 between Hanumaiah and his children. Her husband was allotted properties that were described in the schedule to the deed of partition as Schedule 'F' properties. She claims that one Chandrashekar @ Chandrappa had acquired the following:

(i) Property bearing Site No.2, Khatha No.1231, Assessment No.123/1, No.

(ii) Khaneshumari/Site No. 1, Khatha No. 241.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41862 WP No. 599 of 2025

HC-KAR

(i) She contends that her husband predeceased Chandrashekar @ Chandrappa and since the latter had no children, he and his wife were taken care of by the petitioner and her children. The said Chandrashekar had executed a will dated 21.01.2021 bequeathing the aforementioned properties in favour of the son of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the will was attested by a witness named Sri.Thimmegowda and that after the death of Chandrashekar, the said Sri.Thimmegowda handed over a copy of the will to the son of the petitioner. The will was then placed before the Subregistrar, who registered it in accordance with law.

(ii) The petitioner claims that her son executed a gift deed dated 04.07.2024 in her favour, which was duly registered. Later, she approached the respondent No.2 requesting him to enter her name in the municipal records. The petitioner contends that the said representations are not considered till date and therefore, she is before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider her representation and enter her name in the khatha.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41862 WP No. 599 of 2025

HC-KAR

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner being the present owner of the property, is entitled to get her name entered in the municipal records. He therefore prays that the respondents may be directed to consider the representations and enter her name in the records.

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who contend that after the petitioner submitted a representation, one Smt.Jayalakshmi being the wife of Chandrashekar, submitted an objection on 25.09.2024 against transferring the name of the petitioner in the municipal records. In view of the above, the respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 20.12.2024, to the petitioner directing her to approach the civil Court. Along with the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, the endorsement dated 20.12.2024 is placed on record. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the objection raised, the respondents are not in a position to enter the name of the petitioner.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41862 WP No. 599 of 2025

HC-KAR

The petitioner claims title through her son Niranjan,

who purportedly was a beneficiary of a will executed by Chandrashekar. The municipal records of the property stood in the name of Chandrashekar. The wife of Chandrasekhar has now lodged an objection against registering the name of the petitioner in the municipal records on the ground that her husband had not executed a will in favour of Niranjan. If that be so, the respondents cannot adjudicate upon the validity of the will. Consequently, the respondents were right in directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of CN Nagendra Singh vs. The Special Deputy

Commissioner - ILR 2002 KAR 2750 .

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off on the above terms.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents (BBMP authorities) could be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.07.2024 and enter her name in the property tax register/khatha, where her claimed title rests on a will whose execution is disputed by the executant's wife.¶¶27
The court held
Since the wife of the alleged executant objects that her husband did not execute the will in favour of Niranjan, the respondents (municipal authorities) cannot adjudicate upon the validity of the will; consequently they were right in directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court.ratio¶¶45

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

CN Nagendra Singh vs. The Special Deputy CommissionerRelied on¶¶45
CN Nagendra Singh vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner - ILR 2002 KAR 2750 · Who else cites this

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227¶¶19

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Endorsement dated 20.12.2024 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner, in view of the objection raised, declining to enter her name in municipal records and directing her to approach the civil Court.¶¶40
Respondent No.2 - THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BBMP · 20.12.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner gave representation dated 12.07.2024 to respondent No.2 requesting entry of her name in the property tax register/municipal records; not considered till date.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Smt. Jayalakshmi, wife of Chandrashekar, submitted objection dated 25.09.2024 against transferring the petitioner's name in the municipal records.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
Chandrashekar @ Chandrappa allegedly executed a will dated 21.01.2021 bequeathing Site No.2, Khatha No.1231 and Khaneshumari/Site No.1, Khatha No.241 to the petitioner's son; the will was placed before the Subregistrar and registered.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's son executed a registered gift deed dated 04.07.2024 in favour of the petitioner, after which she approached respondent No.2 for mutation of her name.¶¶35

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE ANANTHARAMU¶¶9
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P.
respondent
THE COMMISSIONER BBMP¶¶14
SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S.
respondent
THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA¶¶15
SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S.
respondent
THE REVENUE INSPECTOR BBMP¶¶16
SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S.

Coram

AI extract

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJauthor¶¶25

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 23 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 10 Jan 2025
Case no.: WP/599/2025
CNR: KAHC010009452025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: R. Natara
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: WRIT PETITION

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R. Natara

Sri. Prashanth Naik Vs the State of Karnataka
17 Oct 2025
Sri Selvaraj v Vs Sri G Munivenkatappa
17 Oct 2025
Smt. H R Shanthamma Vs the Chief Officer
17 Oct 2025
Sri Rajashekar Vs the Commissioner
23 Oct 2025
Sri Parasmal Vs the Commissioner
23 Oct 2025
Sri. Ganesh Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka
23 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

Smt. Gangalakshmamma v. the Commissioner, WP/599/2025 (KA), decided on 23 October 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

CN Nagendra Singh vs. The Special Deputy CommissionerRelied on¶¶45

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Endorsement dated 20.12.2024 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner, in view of the objection raised, declining to enter her name in municipal records and directing her to approach the civil Court.Respondent No.2 - THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BBMP · 20.12.2024
Petitioner gave representation dated 12.07.2024 to respondent No.2 requesting entry of her name in the property tax register/municipal records; not considered till date.
Smt. Jayalakshmi, wife of Chandrashekar, submitted objection dated 25.09.2024 against transferring the petitioner's name in the municipal records.

View full history

Bench / Coram

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

Parties & counsel