- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7697 WP No. 23893 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 23893 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O SRI ASWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI ASWATHAPPA S/O LATE KONDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.15/73, 3RD CROSS, GOVINAYAKANAHALLI, KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560078 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P D SURANA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560002 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER(SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION OFFICE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 3. REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, PADMANABHA NAGAR DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, S KARIYAPPA ROAD, YEDIYURU COMMERCIAL MARKET COMPLEX, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7697 WP No. 23893 of 2023 BENGALURU-560082 4. ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, PADMANABHANAGAR SUB DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, BBMP BUILDING, ANJANEYANAGARA, JANATHA BAZAAR JUNCTION, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.07.2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- L ISSUED BY THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER, PADMANABHA SUB DIVISION, BBMP, BANGALORE, BEARING NO.DAVAA- 181/PR/705/2022-23 ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Annexure- L – an endorsement given by the BBMP to the petitioners. 2. Annexure-L reads as follows: “§ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ ¸ÀASÉå.rJªÁ-181/¦Dgï/705/22-23 ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7697 WP No. 23893 of 2023 ¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ£ÀUÀgÀ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, ©©JA¦ PÀlÖqÀ 1£Éà ªÀĺÀr, DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ d£ÀvÁ §eÁgï dAPÀë£ï, §£À±ÀAPÀj 3£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-85, ¢£ÁAPÀ 26.7.2023 »A§gÀºÀ «µÀAiÀÄ: £ÀA.15/73, UÉÆë£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î ªÁqïð-181, F ¸ÀéwÛ£À SÁvÁ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ G¯ÉèÃR: 1) CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà C±ÀéxÀ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀ Cfð ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.01.2023. 2) PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÉÆñÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.07.2023 ***** ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà C±ÀéxÀ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀA.15/73, UÉÆë£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î, ªÁqïð-181gÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À SÁvÉ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À®Ä PÉÆÃj ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.12.2022 gÀAzÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÉÆñÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀAvÉ, ²æêÀÄw ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀÄ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ zÁªÉAiÀÄÄ HfðvÀUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ ²æêÀÄw ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ §UÉÎ EvÀåxÀðUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ §UÉÎ DzÉñÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ §UÉÎ EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ §UÉÎ EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¸À»/- 26.07.2023 ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁj, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7697 WP No. 23893 of 2023 ¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ£ÀUÀgÀ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ." 3. As could be seen from the above, the BBMP has refused to register the Khatha in favour of the petitioners on the ground that there was no declaratory decree granted in their favour which established their title to the property. 4. The contention of the petitioners appears to be that the property in question was agreed to be sold to them under an Agreement for Sale dated 10.03.1980 and thereafter, the vendor had filed a suit for eviction, but the same was dismissed. 5. It appears that one Nandakumar who claimed to have purchased the property had also filed a suit in O.S.No.7843/2003 seeking declaration. It is also contended that the petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.9550/2014 seeking a decree of injunction to restrain Nandakumar i.e., the plaintiff in O.S.No.7843/2003, which was clubbed along with - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7697 WP No. 23893 of 2023 the suit filed by Nandakumar and the Civil Court had dismissed the suit of Nandakumar while decreeing the suit for injunction filed by the petitioners. 6. It is therefore the case of the petitioners that since they are in possession and have an agreement of sale in their favour, the Khatha is required to be registered in their name. 7. In fact, in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, it is stated as follows: “1) That, the 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner. That, one Sri.Thoti Muniyappa S/o. Bukkappa was the owner of the site property bearing Khanushmari No.15/73, situated at 3rd Cross, Near Dayananda Sagar College, Govinayakanahalli, Bangalore presently bearing Property No.2, 3rd Cross, Govinayakanahalli, K.S. Layout, Bangalore. That under the agreement dated: 10.03.1980 agreed to sell the said property for the sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only) and having received the entire sale consideration has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the 1st petitioner. In the agreement it is made clear that, entire purchase - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7697 WP No. 23893 of 2023 money is received and that the 1st petitioner is entitled to possess and enjoy the property as a owner. The said Thoti Muniyappa has expired about 35-40 years ago and he was survived by his wife Smt. Malamma. The said Malamma has also expired 16/18 years ago and thus, there are no other legal heirs succeeded to their estate.” 8. It is admittedly not the case of the petitioners that a Sale Deed has been executed in their favour. Merely because the suit for eviction filed by the vendor has been dismissed and the subsequent suit filed by the purchaser has also been dismissed, that cannot lead to an inference that the petitioners had acquired title over the property. For the petitioners to claim that the Khatha be registered in their name, it is settled law that the registration of Khatha is normally registered in the name of the person who possesses title over the property. I am therefore of the view that the challenge to the endorsement by which the BBMP has refused to register the Khatha in the name of the petitioners cannot be found fault with since - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7697 WP No. 23893 of 2023 there was no document of title in favour of the petitioners. 9. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17