- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28648 WP No. 14193 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.14193 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SAYEEDA BANU W/O LATE ANWAR SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS NO.12-3, CLARKES ROAD RICHARDS TOWN OPPOSITE TO RICHARDS PARK BENGALURU-560 005 2. SMT.TABASSUM SHARIEFF W/O MR FRANK SIFFATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.12-3, CLARKES ROAD RICHARDS TOWN OPPOSITE TO RICHARDS PARK BENGALURU-560005 3. SRI.USMAN SHARIEFF S/O LATE ANWAR SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.12-3, CLARKES ROAD RICHARDS TOWN OPPOSITE TO RICHARDS PARK BENGALURU-560005 4. SMT.TANJUM JAHAN ARA D/O LATE ANWAR SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.12-3, CLARKES ROAD Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28648 WP No. 14193 of 2025 RICHARDS TOWN OPPOSITE TO RICHARDS PARK BENGALURU-560005 5. SMT.HUSNA BADE SABAH D/O LATE ANWAR SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NO.12-3, CLARKES ROAD RICHARDS TOWN OPPOSITE TO RICHARDS PARK BENGALURU-560005 6. SRI.SADDAM SHARIEFF S/O LATE ANWAR SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS NO.12-3, CLARKES ROAD RICHARDS TOWN OPPOSITE TO RICHARDS PARK BENGALURU-560 005 ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR CHETAN BHARATH S/O SRI.A.S.VISHNU BHARATH …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA G S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28648 WP No. 14193 of 2025 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BBMP WARD NO.152-SUDUGUNTEPALYA, BBMP, BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR CANCEL OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 25/11/2024 BEARING NO.SAKAM(BTM) WARD - 152/KTR/45/24-25 I.E., ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 25.11.2024 issued by respondent No.2. As per the impugned endorsement, respondent No.2 citing a circular dated 20.10.2014 has declined to issue a bifurcated khata insofar as schedule ‘A’ property purchased by the petitioner. Therefore, the endorsement is under challenge. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28648 WP No. 14193 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. 3. The issue on hand stands substantially addressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which, in fact, pertains to a portion of land bearing Sy. No.87/2A, a converted land. The petitioners in W.P. No.15396/2022, who were similarly aggrieved by an endorsement issued by the Authorities, were compelled to approach this Court. Pursuant to the directions issued therein, the Authorities issued a separate khata in favour of the petitioners in that writ petition. 4. However, in the present case, while issuing khata in respect of the schedule property, the Authorities have erroneously retained a consolidated khata in favour of one Jamalluddin, which also includes the petitioner's property. The records further reveal that there are three purchasers in respect of the land comprised in Sy. No.87/2A. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28648 WP No. 14193 of 2025 5. In light of the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, wherein it has been categorically held that when a portion of developed/converted land is purchased from a larger extent, the BBMP authorities are required to bifurcate the khata based on the registered title documents, the impugned action cannot be sustained. The khata issued in favour of Jamalluddin pertains only to Schedule 'B' property. Issuing a consolidated khata that includes the petitioner’s Schedule ‘A’ property, despite the petitioner having an independent registered title deed, is contrary to law and the earlier judicial pronouncement. 6. Therefore, the Authority’s refusal to issue an independent, bifurcated khata to the petitioner, despite the production of a registered sale deed, is unsustainable. The petitioner has established a legal right warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is in clear contravention of the observations and findings recorded by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28648 WP No. 14193 of 2025 the Co-ordinate Bench concerning the same survey number. ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The endorsement dated 25.11.2024 issued by respondent No.2, produced at Annexure-G, is hereby quashed. (iii) The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh online application, enclosing the registered title deed and all other relevant documents. If such an application is submitted, respondent No.2 shall forthwith initiate the process of bifurcating the khata and issue an independent khata in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Schedule ‘A’ property. (iv) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the online application. (v) It is made clear that the existing khata holders shall be put on notice prior to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28648 WP No. 14193 of 2025 issuance of the independent khata in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7