Smt. Suman Rao.G. Vs the Greater Bengaluru

SRI BHASKAR RAVI SHANKAR S/O LATE RAVI SHANKAR AND SMT.SUMAN RAJ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 5589, 7TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 070. REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, (1ST PETITIONER - SMT. SUMAN RAP.6)

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. RANGANTHA S JOIS., ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:28315 WP No. 17145 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE GREATER BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE,

¶18

BENGALURU 560 001.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP OFFICE, BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, S. KARIYAPPA ROAD, NEAR YADYURU LAKE BENGALURU-560082

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF REJECTION DTD 01.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNX-G, THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VIOLATING OF ARTICLE 14 OF 16(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH CHANGE THE KHATHA VIDE ANNX-B DTD 10.05.13 IN BBMP IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN PURSUANCE OF THE WILL WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY VIDE ANNX-C DTD 22.04.15.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28315 WP No. 17145 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are the daughter-in-law and grandson of Smt. Anantha Lakshmi W/o. Late S. Nagarajiah who had the benefit of ownership and the revenue entries for the property bearing No.22 (Old No. 588), 9^th Cross Road, WKP Road, 7^th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru [ the subject property ]. The petitioners are aggrieved because the second respondent has issued an endorsement refusing to give the benefit of revenue entries for the subject property in their favour because of a mismatch in the name of a legatee .

¶29

2. Mr. Ranganatha S. Jois, the learned

¶30

counsel for the petitioners, emphasizes the following circumstances to assert that the second respondent could not have rejected the petitioners' application on such ground.

¶31

[a] Smt. Anantha Lakshmi [ the Kathedar of the subject property ] was known as

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28315 WP No. 17145 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Smt. Lakshmi Nagaraj after her marriage and therefore she has executed and registered her last Will and Testament dated 22.04.2015 bequeathing the subject property in favour of the petitioners describing herself by her married name.

¶35

[b] Smt. Smt. Anantha Lakshmi had applied for a loan, and when pointed out that the revenue entry for the subject property stands in her maiden name and she is applying for a loan in her married name, she has sworn to an affidavit stating that she is known by both names.

¶36

[c] The bank has sanctioned the loan with this document, and she has also discharged the loan.

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28315 WP No. 17145 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

3. Mr. Ranganatha S. Jois submits that

¶40

these circumstances have been brought to the second respondent’s notice, but the officer has not considered them who has rejected the application on the ground that there is a mismatch in the name. Mr. Pawan Kumar, a learned Standing counsel for the respondents, is heard.

¶41

4. This Court is of the view that the revenue entries for the subject property are made in the maiden name of Khatedar and the last Will and Testament mentions her married name cannot be a

¶42

reason to reject the application for revenue entries,

¶43

especially when there are no counter claims. Therefore, there must be a direction to the

¶44

Authorities to issue revenue entries in favour of the petitioners observing that the revenue entries will always be subject to any decision in the civil proceedings [if there is one]. Hence, the following:

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:28315 WP No. 17145 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

ORDER

¶49

[A] The petition is allowed.

¶50

[B] The impugned decision to refuse revenue entries for the subject property in favour of the petitioners on the ground of a mismatch in the name is quashed.

¶51

[C] The petitioners are reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this Order along with an online application within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt thereof directing the second respondent to consider the same and issue revenue entries expeditiously without delaying the process unjustifiably.

¶52

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶53

RB

Smt. Suman Rao.G. v. the Greater Bengaluru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suman Rao.G. v. the Greater Bengaluru

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

Sri. A.S. Sampath Kumar, Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Roopa Vs Mrs. R Premalatha

Sri. Balbheem Katke Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)

M/S Sree Ranganatha Marketing Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S CORE4 Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

Sri Srikantham Vijay Kumar Vs the Commissioner