Dismissed¶44

Sri. K. P. Satish v. the Greater Bengaluru Authority

Karnataka HC24 Apr 2026WP/10963/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata dispute, Bengaluru West City Corporation / Greater Bengaluru Authority; writ petition by K.P. Satish against endorsement dated 20.03.2026 dismissed as premature; endorsement only promised lawful consideration of Respondent No.3's khata application following W.P.No.16328/2023; petitioner's suit O.S.No.1832/2025 pending without interim order; Articles 226 & 227 certiorari; petitioner's right to challenge any future khata grant reserved.

What did the court decide?

By virtue of the impugned endorsement dated 20.03.2026, respondent no.2 has not stated that khata will be necessarily issued in favour of respondent no.3; it only states that respondent no.3's application would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders passed. ¶38

Sri. K. P. Satish Vs the Greater Bengaluru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22530 WP No. 10963 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 10963 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.P.SATISH AGED 55 YEARS S/O SRI. K.PARAMESHWARA CHAR RESIDING AT NO.37 4^TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. Y.S.HANUMANTHA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION 1^ST FLOOR, BBMP SWIMMING POOL BUILDING 9^TH CROSS, HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 104. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER GALI ANJANEYA SWAMY DEVASTHNA SUB DIVISION, 1^ST FLOOR BBMP SWIMMING POOL BUILDING 9^TH CROSS, HAMPINAGAR BENGALURU-560 104.

¶15

B. SUNDARA RAJU S/O SRI. BHASKARACHAR AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.63

¶16

1^ST MAIN ROAD, 7^TH CROSS ANANTHANAGAR, BAPUJINAGARA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:22530 WP No. 10963 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 026.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SA.KAM.A (G.A.DE) WA 132/PR/35/2025-26 DATED 20.03.2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

There is a dispute in respect of a property between petitioner and respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 filed W.P.No.16328/2023 for grant of khata in respect of the property in his name. This Court has disposed of the W.P.No.16328/2023 by passing the following order.

¶28

"i) The petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh application along with all the necessary particulars for issuance of khata;

¶29

ii) Upon receipt of such an application, the jurisdictional officer of BBMP shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter;

¶30

iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:22530 WP No. 10963 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, respondent nos.1 and 2 have initiated action to consider the representation of respondent no.3 regarding grant of khata. The petitioner has objected to the same contending that he is the owner of the property concerned. It is noticed that petitioner has filed O.S.No.1832/2025 against respondent no.3 in respect of the property, and has failed to obtain an interim order in his favour so far. Hence, respondent no.2 has issued an endorsement to the petitioner stating that if the petitioner does not obtain any interim orders against the order passed in W.P.No.16328/2023, in that event respondent no.2 will consider the request of respondent no.3 and will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after obtaining necessary opinion from its law department. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the present writ petition is filed.

¶35

The case of the petitioner is that, he is entitled to khata of the property and not respondent no.3 and it is submitted that respondent no.2 intends to issue khata in favour of respondent no.3 without considering the rights of the petitioner.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22530 WP No. 10963 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Perusal of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J to the writ petition, shows that the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. By virtue of the impugned endorsement dated 20.03.2026, respondent no.2 has not stated that khata will be necessarily issued in favour of respondent no.3. But has stated that application of respondent no.3 would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed. The relevant portion of the impugned endorsement reads as under:

¶39

" DzÀÝjAzÀ WÀ£À GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 16328/2023 gÀ DzÉÃ±À/¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30-8-2025 gÀAvÉ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ¥ÀvÀæ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 7 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉÆ¼ÀUÁV WÀ£À GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 16328/2023 UÉ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕ EgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w ºÁUÀÆ zÁR:ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸À®Ä F ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄÄSÉÃ£À ¸ÀÆa¸À:ÁVzÉ. vÀ¦àzÀ°è WÀ£À GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÉÆÃ±À ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À:ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ºÁUÀÆ G:ÉèÃR( 1 )gÀ CfðAiÀÄ §UÉÎ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À®Ä ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ E-D¹Û D£ï:ÉÊ£ï ¥ÉÆÃlð:ï£À°è ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ, E.¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©rJ¤AzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢vÀ £ÀPÉë ¥Àæw EvÁå¢ zÁR:ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À:ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÉAzÀÄ F ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄÄSÉÃ£À w½¸À:ÁVzÉ. "

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for GBA also submits that based on the documents made available to respondent no.2 by respondent no.3 and the petitioner, a decision would be taken whether to issue khata in favour of respondent no.3 or not as

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22530 WP No. 10963 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.16328/2023. He further submits that if a decision is taken to issue katha in favour of respondent no.3, then in that event petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature as no decision has been taken yet to grant khata in favour of respondent no.3.

¶44

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶45

It is needless to state that, if a decision is taken by respondent no.2 to grant khata in favour of respondent no.3, petitioner is always having the right to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶46

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶47

PGG

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri. K. P. Satish v. the Greater Bengaluru Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. P. Satish v. the Greater Bengaluru Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N S Jayaprakash Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Smt. Champa Vs the Commissioner

Sri H N Nandish Vs Panchayath Development Officer

District Stone Crusher Licensing and Regulatory Authority Vs M/S Prabhavathi Stone Crushers

Sri M Krishnappa Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. Hemanth Kumar. S. K. Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority