- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 55444 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI KANTHILAL S/O LATE SRI. CHAMPALAL AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.459, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU. 2. SRI. PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs 2(A) SMT. KOMLAMMA W/O LATE SRI. PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 1ST MAIN ROAD 3RD CROSS PADARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-560 026. 2(B) SRI. P. PRASHANTH S/O LATE PURUSHOTHAMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 1ST MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 3RD CROSS PADARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-560 026. (ALREADY ON RECORD AS R-3) 2(C) SRI. DAYANAND S/O LATE PURUSHOTHAMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 1ST MAIN ROAD 3RD CROSS PADARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-560 026. 3. SRI. P. PRASHANTH S/O PURUSHOTHAMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 1ST MAIN ROAD3RD CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJEEV .B.L, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. NISHANTH .A.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2(B) AND R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 NOTICE TO R2 (A AND C) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BBMP TO, NOT TO ACT CONTRARY TO SECTION 114 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976, DIRECT R-1 BBMP TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PETITIONER, BEFORE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: "i. prays that respondent-1 BBMP may be directed to not to act contrary to section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976: ii. and further prays that respondent-1 BBMP may be directed to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, before considering the application filed by the respondent-3,: iii. and further prays that Respondent-1 BBMP may be directed to reject the application filed by the respondent- 3 for transfer of Khatha of the property bearing Municipal Corporation No.46, (old No.552), located at 9th Main, 18th Cross, M.R.C.R. Layout, Govindraj Nagar, Bangalore - 560040, measuring 35 +60/2 x 50 + 55/2, since 1986, as they have no right, title or interest over the said property: iv. and may be further pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or such other Order bearing No. interalia quashing the Khatha endorsement DA/W/125/K.T.R/44/15-16 dated 05-03-2016 issued in the name of respondent-3 (Annexure-L) and consequently Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract issued pursuant to said Khatha endorsement: v. and further prays that respondent- 2 and 3 who have played fraud on the respondent-1 BBMP, be prosecuted for abuse of process of law, for playing fraud on the City - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 Civil Court, Bangalore, inn obtaining collusive decree by suppressing true facts and documents/material records:" 2. The petitioner claims that the property bearing Municipal Corporation No.46 (old No.552) situated on 9th Main, 18th Cross, M.R.C.R. Layout, Govindraj Nagar, Bangalore – 560 040, was brought for auction by the City Civil Court, Bangalore, in Execution Case No.495/1984. The petitioner claims that he was the successful bidder and a sale certificate dated 19.03.1988 was executed and registered. (ii) In the meanwhile, a lady named Smt.Padma Maiya filed an application in Execution Case No.495/1984 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC' for short) to obstruct the further steps in the execution petitioner. The Executing Court allowed the said application in terms of an order dated 04.01.1996. This was then challenged by the petitioner in RFA No.98/1996, which was allowed in terms of an order dated 18.01.1999. The said Smt.Padma Maiya filed S.L.P (Civil) No.5022/1999, which was dismissed on 27.08.1999. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 (iii) Later, again on 22.01.2000, Smt.Padma Maiya filed another application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, claiming that she was in possession of the property and sought to protect her possession. The application was rejected in terms of an order dated 22.01.2000, which was challenged before this Court in CRP No.427/2000, which too was dismissed on 07.12.2000. (iv) In the meanwhile, the name of the petitioner was entered in the tax register maintained by the respondents No.1 on 12.03.2001. Later, Smt.Padma Maiya filed S.L.P (Civil) No.4162/2001 challenging the order passed in CRP No.427/2000, which too was dismissed on 19.03.2001. The Executing Court issued a delivery warrant on 01.02.2001 and the petitioner was placed in possession of the aforesaid property. When things stood thus, the said Smt.Padma Maiya purportedly executed a sale deed on 15.11.2002, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Krishnagiri, in favour of Sri.Purushothama. The petitioner filed OS No.6886/2001 against Sri.Purushothama to protect her possession in the aforesaid property. The said suit after contest was decreed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 (v) Thereafter, the son of Sri.Purushothama filed OS No.9503/2007 for partition and separate possession, which was settled amicably in terms of which the property purportedly fell to the share of the son of Sri.Purushothama. This decree was allegedly behind the back of the petitioner and he was not arrayed as a party in the said suit. The said decree was challenged in Misc. Petition No.244/2009, which was dismissed and which was then challenged before this Court in RFA No.534/2014. This Court by an order dated 16.01.2015 allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Court for reconsideration. (vi) When things stood thus, the respondent No.3 filed an application before the respondent No.1 to transfer the khatha in his name. The petitioner caused a notice calling upon the respondent No.1 not to transfer the name of the respondent No.3 in the property register. The petitioner also followed it up by filing this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent No.1 not to entertain the application filed by the respondent No.3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No.1 had entered the name of the respondent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 No.3 in the property tax register and therefore, the petitioner has amended the writ petition seeking the additional reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the property and his name was entered in the property tax register as early as on 12.03.2001. He submits that he did not execute any conveyance in favour of the respondent No.3. Therefore, the respondent No.3 could not have requested the respondent No.1 to enter his name in the property tax register. He also contends that the respondent No.3 and his father had brought about collusive proceedings to lay a claim to the property in question and hence, no indulgence can be shown to the respondent No.3 by registering his name in the khatha and whatever that is entered in his name has to be set aside and the name of the petitioner has to be restored in the property tax register. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contends that the respondent No.3 is in possession of the property in question and therefore, the respondent No.1 after being satisfied about the title of the respondent No.3 had - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 entered the name of the respondent No.3 in the property tax register. He therefore contends that it is for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and establish his title as against the respondent No.3 and thereafter, the respondent No.1 would take appropriate steps to enter the name of the petitioner. 5. He also submits that the challenge to the decree passed in OS No.9503/2007 is still pending consideration and therefore, the khatha that is entered in the name of the respondent No.3 should not be disturbed until Misc. Petition No.244/2009 is disposed off. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the name of respondent No.3 was entered in the Khatha register based on the decree passed in OS No.9503/2007. He therefore submits that the same was done, believing the representation made by the respondent No.3. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3. 8. The facts narrated above would indicate that there is a constant strife between the petitioner and the respondent - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 Nos.2 and 3 to assume control of the property in question. The petitioner was a purchaser at an auction held by the Court on 23.01.1988. A sale certificate was issued by the Court in favour of the petitioner on 19.03.1988. The name of the petitioner was entered in the property tax register on 12.03.2001. From that day onwards there have been several litigations between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The respondent No.3 had filed a suit in OS No.9503/2007 against the respondent No.2 for partition and separate possession and the said suit was compromised in terms of which the property in question fell to the share of the respondent No.3. This decree is challenged by the petitioner in Misc. Petition No.244/2009, which was dismissed and Regular First Appeal filed there against before this Court in RFA No.534/2014 was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Court for consideration afresh. Therefore, as the matter now stands, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 is pending consideration before the Civil Court. The fact that the name of the petitioner was entered in the property tax register by the respondent No.1 on 12.03.2001 is not much in dispute. However, the petitioner did not convey the property in question to the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 respondent No.2 or the respondent No.3. Therefore, if the respondent No.3 had a better title than the petitioner, it was for him to approach the Civil Court and obtain necessary declaration. 9. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the respondent No.1 transferring the khatha of the property in question to the name of the respondent No.3 is without any basis and deserves to be set at nought. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 transferring the khatha of the property in question to the name of the respondent No.3 based on the decree passed in OS No.9503/2007 is set aside and the khatha of the property shall be restored to the name of the petitioner. The concerned Assistant Revenue Officer shall take steps to restore the khatha of the property in question in the name of the petitioner, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall submit an application along with a copy of this order to the concerned Assistant Revenue Officer. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42638 WP No. 55444 of 2015 10. However, it is made clear that this is subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Civil Court in Misc. Petition No.244/2009. In the event the respondent No.3 succeeds in the miscellaneous proceedings, the name of the respondent No.3 shall stand restored in the property tax register of the property in question. Until then, the khatha of the property shall continue in the name of the petitioner. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60