Sri R Muniraju Vs the Commissioner

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS DTD. 24.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP, HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-R-2 AS PER ANNX-F, AS PER ANNX-F1, AS PER ANNX-F2, AS PER ANNXF3, AS PER ANNX-F4, AS PER ANNX-F5, AS PER ANNX-F6 AND AS PER ANNX-F7 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT R-2 TO ISSUE B KATHA/VAHI IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SITE NO. 1/1-07, SITE NO.1/1-10, SITE NO.1/1-26, SITE NO.1/1-27, SITE NO.1/-1-09, SITE NO.2/1D-67, SITE NO.18 AND SITE NO. 1/1001 SITUATED AT GEDDALAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

¶24

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30728 WP No. 15702 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner asserts ownership over certain sites in Geddalahalli Village, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru relying upon the partition in the petitioner's family. The petitioner, in response to applications filed for 'B' Khata in February 2022, is issued with Endorsements in March 2022 stating, amongst others, that his application relates to the revenue entries for sites in Sy.Nos.1/1 and 2/1 (New No.2/1D) of Geddalahalli Village, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru but a certain Mr. R. Muniyappa has filed objections in the year 2018 stating that the petitioner and others rely upon a fraudulent partition deed and no Khata must be issued. The petitioner is issued with similar even dated impugned Endorsements corresponding to the respective sites [ Annexures - F to F7 ].

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:30728 WP No. 15702 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Mr. N. S. Bhat, the learned counsel for the

¶34

petitioner, and Mr. Mallikarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition. The decision on the petitioner's application is deferred on an objection filed four years prior to the date of the application, and this Court is of the view that the Assistant Revenue Officer who has issued these Endorsements should have extended an opportunity to the petitioner and the person who has filed objections to respond and then communicated a decision.

¶35

The impugned Endorsements issued

¶36

referring just to the objections cannot be sustained, but the question is, should this Court restore the proceedings for re-examination. The property is now within the jurisdiction of the Greater Bengaluru Authority, which will have to function under the provisions of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ' the GBG Act' ]. The decisions on

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30728 WP No. 15702 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

change of revenue entries are governed under Section 149 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, 'the GBG Act']

¶40

The Commissioner or the Commissioner's

¶41

delegate may entertain a review against any decision, but only after an enquiry as he considers necessary if there is any fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts or incomplete evidence. This Court, in the circumstances, is of the view that the impugned Endorsements [ Annexures - F to F7 ] must be quashed and the petitioner’s applications restored for reconsideration in review under Section 149(6) of the GBG Act with opportunity not only to the petitioner but also to the objector in such enquiry. Hence, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

[a] The petition is allowed in part.

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30728 WP No. 15702 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

[b] The impugned Endorsements dated 24.03.2022 [ Annexures - F to F7 ] are quashed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 149(6) of the GBG Act within two [2] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order calling upon the Authority delegated to exercise power under this provision to issue notice not only to the petitioner but also to the objector and decide on the petitioner's request by a reasoned order within three [3] months from the date of receipt of such application.

¶47

[c] This Court observes that if any other objections are received, the officer shall ensure that notice is also issued to such objector, but the

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:30728 WP No. 15702 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

enquiry must be completed within the time stipulated.

¶51

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶52

RB

Sri R Muniraju v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Muniraju v. the Commissioner

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

Rama Reddy Dhasharatha Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Mr Aboobacker Sidheeq P v Vs M/S Thrinity Heart Foundation Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Ashok M v Vs Greater Bengalruu South Corporation

Sri v Muniraju Vs the Commissioner

Mr Iqbal Vs Kthe Chief Commissioner

Sunil Kanaran, Vs the State of Karnataka