- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38001-DB WA No. 1542 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 1542 OF 2023 (T-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION OFFICES, S J P ROAD, BANGALORE 560 002 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (PROPERTIES) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 002. 3. THE RETURING OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION OFFICES, S J P ROAD, BANGALORE 560002. 4. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR CIRCLE, J C ROAD, BANGALORE 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADV.) AND: SRI M.G. PRAKASH AGED 72 YRS, S/O LATE M.S. GURUPADASWAMY, R/O NO.8, CRESCENT COURT ROAD, Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38001-DB WA No. 1542 of 2023 4TH FLOOR, CRESCENT COURT APARTMENT, HIGH GROUNDS, BANGALORE 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SRIPAD GANGADHAR HEGDE, ADV.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11/10/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.120/2022. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 2. The father of the writ petitioner- a journalist and Union Minister for Petroleum and Chemicals, was allotted a site in a Journalists Colony, Bangalore in 1949 on the condition that an amount of Rs.5/- per yard is paid for 60*40 site measuring 266 square yards amounting to Rs.1,333.69/-. The writ petitioner's father had put up construction on the said property and having expired on 10.05.2011, the writ petitioner succeeded to the said property under a registered will dated 20.10.1990. An application was preferred by the writ petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38001-DB WA No. 1542 of 2023 to the BBMP for issuance of Khata in respect of the said property and the same was pending. 3. The BBMP had issued an endorsement dated 04.02.2019 stating that since receipt of Rs.1333.69/- had not been submitted nor were details furnished as to whether the petitioner's father had completed the construction within two years of the allotment, the application for issuance of Khata had been kept pending. The writ petitioner made an application again on 25.02.2019 enclosing certain documents and stating that the receipt for a sum of Rs.1333.69 was not traceable with the petitioner as also plan of the year 1951-52 was not traceable and the same may be available with the BBMP Corporation and the petitioner made several representations which were not acted upon. 4. The writ petitioner preferred W.P.No.120/2022 seeking to execute a sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner. It was submitted that the receipt having been lost, no receipt is available with the writ petitioner. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that if at all the payment had not been made, the respondent/authorities ought not to have handed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38001-DB WA No. 1542 of 2023 over possession or sanctioned a plan permitting the construction and after a period of 70 years, the respondents cannot be heard to say that the said payment was not been made, the file pertaining to said property has been lost and the documents are not available. It was also observed that the contention that there is a violation of the plan sanctioned and that the property is being used for different purposes that than permitted, it was always open for the Corporation to initiate such action as permissible under law and that cannot be a ground to deprive the petitioner of a sale deed of a property as regards which payment has been made and construction put up and property tax have been paid. The Writ Petition was allowed and the respondent corporation was directed to execute a sale deed without insisting on production receipt for Rs.1333.69/- or insisting on production of document evidencing the construction having been completed within 2 years. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred this appeal praying to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38001-DB WA No. 1542 of 2023 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that evidence showing the payment of Rs.1,333.69/- in the year 1951 had not been produced by the writ petitioner and that the affidavit filed in the year 1949 had not been made available by him. 7. It is further submitted that Annexure-R4 - Endorsement rejecting the request of the writ petitioner has not been challenged and that the matter is civil in nature and the direction should not have been issued by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition. 8. We have considered the contentions advanced. It is an admitted fact that the allotment of the 60X40 site in a Journalists Colony in Bengaluru was made in the year 1949 in favour of the petitioner's late father. The payment of an amount of Rs.1,333.69/- and filing of the affidavit were the conditions for the execution of the sale deed. On 11.05.1951, admittedly, the sale deed has also been executed between the BBMP and the petitioner's late father. Thereafter, the Khatha of the property stood recorded in the name of the petitioner's father. A building was also constructed in the property after - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38001-DB WA No. 1542 of 2023 obtaining due permissions and the property tax was also being accepted from the petitioner and his father by the BBMP. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the writ petitioner had approached the BBMP only in the year 2011 seeking change of Khatha in his name and it is only then that the evidence for payment of amount in 1951 was sought by the BBMP. We notice that the learned Single Judge has considered all the contentions raised by the BBMP including with regard to non-availability of the receipt for payment of an amount of Rs.1,333.69/- in the year 1951. The learned Single Judge has specifically considered that the writ petitioner had produced all the available documents including the minutes of the City Municipal Corporation dated 06.12.1949, the site endorsement dated 31.05.1949, registered agreement dated 11.05.1951, Building Tax paid receipts for the year 1979-1980, sanctioned plan dated 10.03.1980, occupancy certificate dated 14.11.1983, the Khata Certificate issued on 27.01.2015, as well as the registered Will. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38001-DB WA No. 1542 of 2023 10. Having considered the contentions advanced, and the pleadings and materials on record, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are perfectly legal and valid. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge which requires any interference in this intra-court appeal. The writ appeal therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21