- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31361 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. R BHARATHI MURALIDHAR D/O. LATE Y RAMAIAH W/O. M. MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO. 63, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, JAKKASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 034. PH.NO:9845002868 EMAIL: cm.muralidhar@gmail.com …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH M, ADVOCATE AND SRI. BHASKAR PRASAD T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY CORPORATION OFFICE CORPORATION CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 027. PH. NO 080-22660000 EMAIL: comm@bbmp.gov.in 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. PH.NO 080-22975731 EMAIL: dcsouth.bbmp@gmail.com 3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER KORAMANGALA RANGE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 NADA PRABHU KEMPEGOWDA BHAVAN KORAMANGALA MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI BENGALURU - 560 095. PH.NO:080-22975846, EMAIL:NA 4. MRS. LAKSHMI SRINIVAS W/O LATE P SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO. 73/A, 17TH E MAIN ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 095. PH.NO: NA, EMAIL: NA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. PURNACHANDRA M. PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.DA/67/147/KTR/27/2025-26 DATED 19.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.rJ/67/147/PÉnDgï/27/2025-26 dated 19.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to transfer - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 the khata of the petition schedule property to her name and assess the property to tax in her name. 2. The petitioner contends that her father, Sri. Y. Ramaiah was the owner of the property bearing No.234, PID No.67-7-234, situate at 7th block, Koramangala, Bengaluru, who executed a gift deed dated 17.07.2006 bequeathing the aforesaid property to the petitioner. Consequent thereto, she filed an application on 30.08.2006 with the respondent No.3 for change of khata in her favour. The respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 09.10.2006 requiring the petitioner to appear for an enquiry before him as the respondent No.4 had also applied for transfer of khata in respect of the very same property. After hearing both the parties, the respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 17.11.2006 stating that the application for change of khata cannot be considered until final disposal of the suit in O.S. No.7952/2006. Later, on 17.11.2006, the petitioner requested the respondent No.3 to obtain an opinion from the Law Department. However, the respondent No.3 again issued an endorsement dated 16.01.2007 stating that the request of the petitioner would be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 considered after disposal of the suit in O.S. No.7952/2006. The petitioner then filed a review petition before the respondent No.2 under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 to set aside the said endorsement dated 16.01.2007 issued by the respondent No.3. The petitioner challenged the endorsement dated 16.04.2007 stated to be issued by the respondent No.3 herein based on the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (East), BBMP, as well as the endorsement dated 16.01.2007 issued by the respondent No.3 herein before this Court in W.P. No.10737/2007, which was allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 03.10.2007 and the endorsements impugned therein were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for fresh consideration with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made therein. Later, the petitioner filed an application for fresh consideration but again, the respondent No.3 rejected her application vide endorsement dated 28.08.2008 on the ground that the application would be considered after disposal of the suit in O.S. No.7952/2006. The petitioner contends that her father had executed a power of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 attorney in favour of one Sri M. Papanna to do certain acts and deeds in respect of the aforesaid property. The said Sri M. Papanna died on 25.11.1995 and he had executed a lease deed dated 11.09.1993 in favour of one Sri P. Srinivas and respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 herein filed two suits before the Trial Court, (i) O.S. No.7952/2006 for perpetual injunction against the father of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid property and (ii) O.S. No.6794/2007 against the petitioner, her father and the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, for declaration and injunction in respect of the aforesaid property. Both the suits were clubbed and considered by the Court of the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, and the same were thereafter dismissed on merits in terms of a judgment dated 21.09.2023. After disposal of the suits, the petitioner again requested for transfer of khata to her name. The Zonal Joint Commissioner (South), BBMP, directed the respondent No.3 to effect khata in respect of the aforesaid property to the name of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Appeal No.D.J.C(S)/KR/PR/3653/2010-11. However, the respondent No.3 herein has issued the impugned endorsement stating that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 the respondent No.4 had filed RFA No.925/2025 before this Court where there is an order dated 21.04.2025 directing the parties not to alienate, encumber or create any third party rights over the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing. The petitioner contends that there is no embargo by this Court to register the khata in respect of the aforesaid property in her name. Thus, she contended that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 is liable to be set at nought and a direction deserves to be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to enter the name of the petitioner in the property register and assess the same to tax. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get her name entered in the property register and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable to be directed to forthwith enter her name in the property register and assess the property to tax. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 has opposed the writ petition contending that against the dismissal of O.S.No.6794/2007 c/w O.S.No.7952/2006, RFA - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 No.925/2025 is filed, which is pending consideration before this Court. He therefore, submits that unless RFA No.925/2025 is disposed off, no direction can be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to enter the name of the petitioner in the property register. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 6. The case on hand has a chequered history in as much as father of the petitioner was allotted a site by the Bengaluru Development Authority, which was followed by a sale deed dated 10.07.2006 in his favour. It appears that the father of the petitioner had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Mr. M. Papanna to do certain acts, deeds and things. The said Mr. M. Papanna had executed a lease deed dated 11.09.1993 in favour of Mr. P Srinivas and respondent No.4, who was inducted as tenant. The respondent No.4 then filed O.S.No.7952/2006 for perpetual injunction and a suit in O.S.No.6794/2007 for declaration of title and injunction against the father of the petitioner and others. It appears that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 respondent No.4 claimed that Mr. M. Papanna had executed a Will in her favour and based upon that, she claimed title to the property in question. Both the suits were clubbed and were dismissed in terms of a judgment dated 21.09.2023. The fact that the petitioner is the daughter of one Mr. Y. Ramaiah is not in dispute. The petitioner had also filed HRC No.207/2011 against respondent No.4 for eviction and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2014. The respondent No.4 then filed HRRP No.87/2014, which was dismissed. The petitioner then filed Ex.No.683/2022 and recovered possession of the property from the respondent No.4. Therefore, as the matter now stands, the respondent No.4 has no title to the property and has lost possession by virtue of an order passed in Ex.No.683/2022. Hence, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in question as on date and therefore, she is entitled to get her name entered in the property register maintained by the respondent Nos.1 to 3. It may be that the respondent No.4 has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6794/2007 c/w O.S.No.7952/2006, but the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is not upset. Therefore, subject to the outcome of RFA No.925/2025, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 the petitioner is entitled to get her name entered in the property register. 7. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) This petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement bearing No.rJ/67/147/PÉnDgï/27/2025-26 dated 19.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 is quashed. (iii) The respondent No.3 is directed to forthwith enter the name of the petitioner in the property register of the property mentioned above and also assess the property to tax in the name of the petitioner. This is however subject to the outcome of RFA No.925/2025. (iv) Having regard to the fact that the respondent No.4 has unnecessarily exposed the petitioner to unnecessary litigation, this Court considers it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner within a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50929 WP No. 31361 of 2025 period of four weeks from the date of this Order. It is made clear that if the respondent No.4 does not pay the cost, the petitioner is entitled to recover it in the manner known to law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA-para Nos.1 and 2 PMR-from para No.3 till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66