- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36728 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI BYRE GOWDA S/O LATE BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SRI. B.B. PRASAD S/O BYRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.2, 1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MPM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560056. PRESENTLY R/AT: NO.285, 6TH 'A' CROSS, 7TH 'A' MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAKESH BHATT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B.S. PUTTARAJU S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. B.S. MALA W/O B.S. PUTTARAJU, MAJOR IN AGE, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of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he petitioners have challenged an order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the respondent No.4 in Revision Petition No.5114/2014-15. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of 2017 2. (i) The petitioners contend that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed that they had purchased the land in Sy.No.17/3 of Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, under two deeds of sale dated 30.07.1997 from the legal heirs of late Maddurappa. They claimed that Maddurappa was granted 3 acres of land out of which, 1-32 acres was acquired for Sri. Vinayaka Housing Society and 1-08 acres was sought to be acquired for Vijayanagara House Building Co-operative Society. The acquisition of 1-08 acres was set at nought in W.A.Nos.297- 98/1993. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed that the petitioners had purchased the site bearing No.886-D measuring 40' x 60' in the layout formed by Sri. Vinayaka Housing Society in terms of a sale deed dated 17.08.2011 from Mr. P.G.Mookherjei, which was earlier allotted and conveyed to him in terms of a sale deed dated 06.08.1996. The sale deed was later rectified on 08.02.2005, by which, the measurement of site No.886-D was reduced to 30' x 60' in view of a modified plan sanctioned by the BDA. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 therefore, claimed that the property purchased by the petitioners overlapped the property belonging to them and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of 2017 hence, the conveyance and the khatha did not confer any title upon them. They claimed that the khata in the name of Mr. P.G.Mookherjei was also fake and that based upon such fake khata, the names of the petitioners were entered in the property register by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The respondent Nos.1 and 2 therefore, sought cancellation of the khata in the names of the petitioners, before the respondent No.4 in Revision Petition No.5114/2014-15. The respondent No.4 entertained the petition and cancelled the khata in the names of the petitioners. (ii) The petitioners are therefore, before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No.4 primarily on the ground that the petitioners were not heard in the revision petition before the respondent No.4 and that a suit in O.S.No.538/2014 was already filed against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, where an interim order was granted. It is also contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 gave a fake address of the petitioners in the revision petition filed before the respondent No.4 and therefore, notice of the revision petition was not at all served on the petitioners and the respondent No.4 without ensuring service of notice, proceeded - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of 2017 to pass the impugned order setting aside the khata that stood in the names of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had lawfully purchased the site in question from Mr. P.G.Mookherjei, in whose name the khata stood and that after purchase of the property, the khata was lawfully transferred to the names of the petitioners. He therefore, contends that when such khata stood in the names of the petitioners was challenged, the respondent No.4 must have ensured that the notice of the petition is served on the petitioners. He contends that the order sheet maintained by the respondent No.4 shows that throughout the proceedings, the petitioners herein were not served with the notice and the petitioners herein have not appeared before the respondent No.4. He contends that the respondent No.4 proceeded to pass the impugned order behind the back of the petitioners. He therefore, submits that on this short ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Besides this, he contends that the petitioners had filed O.S.No.538/2014 against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and hence, it was incumbent upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to mention about - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of 2017 the pendency of the suit in the revision petition filed before the respondent No.4. He also contends that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had deliberately furnished a fake address of the petitioners though they knew the correct address of the petitioners, which was mentioned in O.S.No.538/2014, to ensure that the notice of the revision petition is not served on the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has opposed this writ petition contending that the petitioners had purportedly purchased a property from Mr. P.G.Mookherjei, who in turn had allotted site by Sri. Vinayaka Housing Society. He contends that the acquisition of land for Sri. Vinayaka Housing Society was quashed by this Court in W.A.Nos.297- 98/1993. He, therefore, contends that the names of the petitioners could not continue in the property register maintained by the BBMP. He therefore, contends that even if the petitioners were not heard, in view of the undisputed facts, there was no need to hear the petitioners. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of 2017 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. The petitioners have furnished a copy of the order sheet maintained by the respondent No.4. A perusal of the order sheet shows that repeated notices issued to the petitioners were returned unserved with the endorsement "no such person resides in the address". The petitioners had filed caveat petition based on the interim order passed in their favour in O.S.No.583/2014, which contained their addresses and the notice of the caveat petition was served on the respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, the address of the petitioners mentioned in the caveat petition is different than their address mentioned in the revision petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the respondent No.4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the notices issued by the respondent No.4 to the petitioners returned unserved with the endorsement "no such person resides in the address". The order sheet maintained by the respondent No.4 further discloses that the petitioners were not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of 2017 heard and the respondent No.4 proceeded to hear the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and passed the impugned order. It is seen that by virtue of the impugned order, the khata that stood in the name of the petitioners was reviewed and set aside. Since this was done behind the back of the petitioners, the same deserves to be set aside, as it was in violation of principles of natural justice and the proceedings before respondent No.4 deserve to be restored for fresh consideration. 7. While considering the review petition, respondent No.4 is only expected to check whether the site in question was allotted and conveyed to Mr. P.G.Mookherjei by Sri. Vinayaka House Building Society and whether the khata was made out in his name. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative then, he shall check whether Mr. P.G.Mookherjei had conveyed the site to the petitioners and whether the khata was made out in their name. He shall not go into the correctness or genuineness of the allotment of site to Mr. P.G.Mookherjei or the conveyance in favour of the petitioners. Any decision that respondent No.4 may arrive at is subject to the outcome of RFA No.694/2018 pending before this Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of 2017 8. In view of the above, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the respondent No.4 in Revision Petition No.5114/2014- 15 is set aside. (iii) The case is remitted back to the Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru West. (iv) The Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru West, is directed to consider the revision petition in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. (v) The parties shall appear before the Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru West, on 05.12.2025. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48489 WP No. 36728 of 2017 (vi) Any decision of respondent No.4 shall be subject to the outcome of RFA No.694/2018 pending before this Court. 9. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58