Mr. Mahboob Sheriff v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026WP/16454/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Change/transfer of Khata; Khatha transfer; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP); Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA); Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; WP No. 16454 of 2021 (LB-BMP); Annexure-C representation dated 26.04.2021; online application for change of Khata; consideration in accordance with law; 60-day timeline for appropriate orders; Bengaluru - Palace Guttahalli; Ward No. 93 Vasanthnagar; Justice M.I. Arun; writ petition disposed of; pending interlocutory applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make the necessary online application for change of Khata of the property into his name; respondents BBMP/GBA to consider the application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within 60 days of receipt; pending I.As., if any, disposed of. ¶¶31

Mr. Mahboob Sheriff Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, now Greater Bengaluru Authority) are to be directed to consider the petitioner's application/representation for change (transfer) of Khata of the schedule property into his name.

¶¶24

Court's answer

The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is given liberty to make the necessary online application for change of Khata of the property into his name to the concerned authority.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

Upon receipt of the online application, the respondents - BBMP / GBA shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of 60 days thereafter.ratio¶¶33
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Writ Petition No. 16454 of 2021 (LB-BMP), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, decided on 02.04.2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.I. Arun. Petitioner Mahboob Sheriff sought a direction to the respondents - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), now Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) - to transfer the Khata of the schedule property into his name after collecting the necessary charges, by considering his Annexure-C representation dated 26.04.2021. Counsel for BBMP/GBA submitted, upon instructions, that if the petitioner made an online application for change of Khata with all necessary particulars, it would be considered in accordance with law, and the petitioner agreed. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition, gave the petitioner liberty to make the necessary online application for change of Khata to the concerned authority, and directed the respondents to consider it in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within 60 days of receipt; pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18220 WP No. 16454 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 16454 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. MAHBOOB SHERIFF S/O ABDUL BASITH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/A NO.5, 1^ST CROSS, C K STREET PALACE GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 003

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M.D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU

¶14

THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE WARD NO.93, VASANTHNAGAR QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

¶15

&RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18220 WP No. 16454 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TRANSFER KHATHA IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AFTER COLLECTING THE NECESSARY CHARGES BY CONSIDERING ANNEXURE-C REPRESENTATION DATED 26.04.2021.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with

¶24

a prayer to direct the respondents - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'the BBMP') now, the Greater Bengaluru Authority (for short, 'the GBA') to consider his application for change of Khata with respect to the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition into his name.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondents - BBMP

¶26

/ GBA, upon instructions, submits that, if the petitioner were to make an online application for change of Khata along with all the necessary particulars, the same would

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18220 WP No. 16454 of 2021

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner is agreeable for the same. Hence, the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of .

¶32

ii. The petitioner is given liberty to make the necessary online application for change of Khata of the property into his name to the concerned authority.

¶33

iii. Upon receipt of the same, the respondents - BBMP / GBA shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of 60 days thereafter.

¶34

iv. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶36

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Mr. Mahboob Sheriff v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mahboob Sheriff 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

M/S Sai Sumukha Properties Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Rajashekar, Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shashikala Vs the Executive Officer (E.O)

Smt. Shylaja M Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Kumar, Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority

Sri S Manjunathaiah Vs the Regional Commissioner