K. Rajashekhar Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

SRI. N MAHESH S/O LATE K NANDINI AND LATE S NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. 104, 1^ST FLOOR, A WING ORCHID 4 GREEN CITY 3, GAWSI MANIPUR NAGPUR 441108 MAHARASHTRA ALSO AT 387/A, BANGIAPPA GARDENS, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 027 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. N. GANESH

¶25

SRI N VENKATESH S/O LATE K NANDINI AND LATE S NARAYANASWAMY

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:26821 WP No. 23364 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. 1212 RINAL AL SHARJAH TOWER MUJAZ 1, SHARJAH UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ALSO AT 387/A, BANGIAPPA GARDENS SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE 560 027 REPRESENTED HERIN BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI N GANESH.

¶30

…PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADGI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANANDARAMA K.., ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP OFFICE CORPORATION CIRCLE N R SQUARE BENGALURU 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶34

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BBMP, 2^ND FLOOR BBMP COMPLEX 9^TH CROSS 2^ND BLOCK JAYANAGARA BENGALURU 56 011.

¶35

ZONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BBMP, 2^ND FLOOR, BBMP COMPLEX 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU 560 011.

¶36

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER HOMBEGOWDANAGAR SUB DIVISON

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:26821 WP No. 23364 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

BBMP, CHICKPET DIVSION SOUTH ZONE BBMP 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS LIC COLONY BYRASANDRA BENGALURU 560 011.

¶41

S M KANNAPPA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD (A PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND CONTINUING UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFICE AT NO.2, DR. M H MARIGOWDA ROAD NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE BENGALURU 560 027 KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR VAIBHAV NARANG.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. ARUN SRI KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR MS. SOUMYA R NAIR, SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶44

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- A) CALL FOR RECORDS IN THE SECOND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS VIDE NOTICE NO. WA.U.AA(DA) KR/PR/01/25-26 DATED 23.07.2025 ON THE FILE OF THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BBMP, B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE NOTICE NO. WA.U.AA(DA)

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:26821 WP No. 23364 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

KR/PR/01/25-26 DATED 23.07.2025 (ANNEXURE -Y) ISSUED BY THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), BBMP, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN, THROUGH THE ZONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), BBMP.

¶49

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

The petitioner, who has the advantage of Order

¶52

dated 16.05.2025 in proceedings in Case No. ZAC[S]KR/TR/07/2024-25, is aggrieved by the commencement of the proceedings with the second respondent. The impugned proceedings in No.Wa.U.Aa[Da] KR/PR/01/25-26 is styled as ‘a Second Appeal ’, and these proceedings are referred to as the second appeal. The dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent relates to revenue entries to a certain immovable property.

¶53

The petitioner has the advantage of the revenue entries made in their favour in exercise of

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:26821 WP No. 23364 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

jurisdiction under Section 149 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ‘the BBMP Act’ ]. This decision has been called in question by the fifth respondent in the proceedings in

¶58

No. ZAC[S]KR/TR/07/2024-25, and the Joint Commissioner [South Zone] by the Order dated 16.05.2025 has dismissed the fifth respondent's Review Petition which in its operative portion reads as under.

¶59

“Based on the aforesaid facts and grounds urged, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter and change the Khata from the legal heirs of late S M Kannappa in favour of the petitioners herein. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. Further, the petitioners are directed to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance.”

¶60

This Court, on 07.08.2025, has stayed further proceedings in the second appeal.

¶61

Sri Prabhuling K Navadgi, the learned

¶62

Senior Counsel for the petitioner, without calling

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:26821 WP No. 23364 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

upon this Court to enter on the merits of the Joint Commissioner's order dated 16.05.2025 under section 150 of the BBMP Act, submits that this Court must interfere because the second respondent has entertained an appeal without any basis in the Statute. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the fifth respondent relies upon the provisions of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [Property Tax Assessment, Recovery and Management] Rules, 2024 [for short ‘the 2024 Rules’ ] to contend that the second respondent is invested with the authority to act as the second appellate authority but this cannot be, and in elaboration, the learned Senior Counsel canvasses as follows.

¶67

[a] Any decision under Section 149 of the BBMP Act is amenable only to review jurisdiction under Section 150 of the Act, and if a person is aggrieved by any order in exercise of such review jurisdiction, the only

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:26821 WP No. 23364 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

remedy would be before this Court in

¶72

a properly instituted petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶73

[b] The third respondent's order dated 16.05.2025 is an order under Section 150 of the BBMP Act. There is no statutory provision creating a right of first appeal or second appeal, and in the absence of such right, the order dated 16.05.2025 under Section 150 of the BBMP Act cannot be considered an order in the first appeal justifying the second respondent entertaining a second appeal.

¶74

Sri Arun Sri Kumar, the learned counsel

¶75

for the fifth respondent, proposes to draw strength from the provisions of Rules 4 and 6 of the 2024

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:26821 WP No. 23364 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Rules, apart from the Statement of Objects and Reasons as contained in the Notification vide which the 2024 Rules are notified, to contend that the authorities as mentioned in Rule 4 would be the original authority, the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority. The learned counsel emphasizes that the 2024 Rules are notified referring to Section 149 of the BBMP Act and therefore this Court must infer jurisdiction in the third respondent under Rule 4[1] of the 2024 Rules.

¶80

This Court is not persuaded by this line of

¶81

argument because of the salient that the right of appeal is a creature of a Statute. A Statute must, in unequivocal terms, create that right, and only when such right is created, given the expanse of such jurisdiction, an appeal would be available as a remedy and not otherwise. It is not even argued that the BBMP Act has a provision which creates this right of appeal, and if the Act does not create the

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:26821 WP No. 23364 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

right of first appeal, the second respondent could not have entertained the second appeal.

¶86

This Court must also observe that it is

¶87

inarguable that the jurisdiction of appeal and jurisdiction of review are very dissimilar and an order under Section 150 of the BBMP Act which confers the power of review cannot be treated as a first appeal. Therefore, the petitioner must succeed, and this Court must intervene to quash the proceedings with the second respondent but observing that this outcome cannot render the fifth respondent without remedy if justified in grievance against the third respondent's order under Section 150 of the BBMP Act. Hence the following.

¶88

ORDER

¶89

The petition is allowed quashing the proceedings styled as ‘Second Appeal’ in No.Wa.U.Aa[Da] KR/PR/01/25-26

¶90

[ Annexure-AA ] on the file of the second

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:26821 WP No. 23364 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

respondent and the Notice dated 23.07.2025 [Annexure-Y] observing that the fifth respondent will be at liberty, subject to all just exceptions in law, to avail remedy as is permissible against the third respondent’s Order dated 16.05.2025 in proceedings in Case No. ZAC[S] KR/ TR/ 07/ 2024-25 [AnnexureW].

¶95

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶96

AN/-

K. Rajashekhar v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Rajashekhar v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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 B Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Chandrashekar Vs the Chief Commissioner

M/S Kmv Projects Limited Vs Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society

K Annayappa Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. v Guru Swagath Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Yashoda N Rai Vs the Commissioner