Dismissed¶¶49

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

Karnataka HC24 Apr 2026WP/11151/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata dispute Bengaluru; Greater Bengaluru Authority / Bengaluru West City Corporation; Assistant Revenue Officer endorsement SA.KAM.A (G.A.DE) WA 132/PR/38/2025-26 dated 20.03.2026; Annexure-J; writ of certiorari Articles 226 & 227; W.P.No.16392/2023 prior order; O.S.No.1512/2025 civil suit no interim order; premature writ petition; petitioner Hemanth Kumar S.K.; respondent G.Kanniyyan case G.Kanniyana; petitioner free to challenge future khata grant; LB-BMP; HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22529; Justice M.I. Arun; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner retains the right to challenge any future decision granting khata in favour of respondent no.3 in the manner known to law. ¶¶49

Sri. Hemanth Kumar. S. K. Vs the Greater… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner retains the right to challenge any future decision granting khata in favour of respondent no.3 in the manner known to law.

¶¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement issued by respondent no.2 (Annexure-J) states or implies that khata would necessarily be issued in favour of respondent no.3, so as to warrant being quashed by writ of certiorari. +1 more

¶¶42

Court's answer

The impugned endorsement does not state that khata will be necessarily issued in favour of respondent no.3; it indicates only that respondent no.3's application would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders passed, so the petitioner's apprehension is unfounded.

¶¶42

Ratio / Principle

For the aforementioned reasons — respondent no.2 not having committed to issuing khata to respondent no.3 and no decision having yet been taken — the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶¶49

Key takeaways

If respondent no.2 decides to grant khata in favour of respondent no.3, the petitioner will always have the right to challenge that decision in the manner known to law.obiter¶¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), single judge (M.I. Arun), Writ Petition No. 11151 of 2026 (LB-BMP), decided 24.04.2026: Petitioner, locked in a property dispute with respondent no.3 (who had obtained an order in W.P.No.16392/2023 permitting a fresh khata application), sought certiorari under Articles 226 & 227 against an endorsement dated 20.03.2026 of the Assistant Revenue Officer (Annexure-J) warning that respondent no.3's khata application would be processed absent interim orders in the petitioner's pending O.S.No.1512/2025. The Court held the endorsement nowhere commits to issuing khata to respondent no.3 — it only signals consideration of the application in accordance with law after law department opinion — so the petitioner's apprehension was unfounded and the petition, lodged before any decision, was dismissed, with the petitioner's liberty reserved to contest any future khata decision in favour of respondent no.3.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22529 WP No. 11151 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 11151 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR S.K. S/O SRI. M.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.8, 4^TH 'C' MAIN BAIRAVESHWARA NAGAR MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU- 560 072.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:22529 WP No. 11151 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. G.KANNIYAN W/O SRI. GOPAL NAIDU AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT NO.237, 1^ST FLOOR 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD JAKKASANDRA, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 026.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

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/38/2025-26 DATED 20.03.2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

There is a dispute in respect of a property between petitioner and respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 filed W.P.No.16392/2023 for grant of khata in respect of the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:22529 WP No. 11151 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

property in his name. This Court has disposed of

¶30

W.P.No.16392/2023 by passing the following order.

¶31

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

¶32

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;

¶33

iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."

¶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.1512/2025 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.16392/2023,

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:22529 WP No. 11151 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

department. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the present writ petition is filed.

¶40

The case of the petitioner is that, he is entitled to khata

¶41

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.

¶42

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 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:

¶43

" DzÀÝjAzÀ WÀ£À GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 16392/2023 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: 16392/2023 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

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:22529 WP No. 11151 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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. "

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for GBA also submits 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 per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.16392/2023. He further submits if a decision is taken to issue khata 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.

¶49