- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 52462 OF 2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI. SYED NAUSHAD S/O LATE SYED SHARFUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.21/3, 2ND CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, MARUTHISEVANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 033. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER YOUSUF SIDDIQUE AHMED, S/O B.M. YOUSUF, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY MS. YOGITHA MUDUKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST ZONE) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER MARUTHISEVANAGARA SUB DIVISION, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 033. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.JC(E)/114A/17/14-15 U/S 114A OF KMC ACT 1976 DATED 13.8.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q. THIS PETITION, COMING ON PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “a. Quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent No.JC(E)/114A/17/14-15 U/s 114A of KMC Act 1976 dated 13-8-2019 as per Annexure- Q. b. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. The erstwhile owners Sri. Khaleel Ahmed and Sri S.A. Subhan sold the Site bearing No.31 carved out of Survey No. 84/2 situated at Lingrajapuram, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 Kasba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 36½ x 40 feet to one Mr. R.Thangavelu, who in turn sold the same to Smt.Margaret Cyril under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1987. At the time of execution of the said sale deed, R. Thangavelu had executed an affidavit indicating that he was in possession of an additional area of 10 x 36½ feet totalling to 365 feet which could also be enjoyed by Smt. Margaret Cyril. In pursuance thereof, on the execution of sale, the respondent Bangalore Mahanagara Palike relying on the sale deed and the affidavit had issued a Khata on 19.10.2004 for an extent of 36½ x 50 feet. Pursuant there to Smt.Margaret Cyril executed a gift deed in favour of her husband on 20.10.2004. Thereafter, the Khata was transferred in the name of her husband on 13.04.2009 showing the extent of the property to be 1825 square feet i.e., 36½ x 50 feet. However, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 Smt. Margaret Cyril sold the property in favour of the petitioner under a registered deed dated 14.08.2012. 3. The petitioner has put up construction on the said property and has been residing therein from that date. The Khata has been transferred in the name of the petitioner for the entire extent of 1825 square feet. It is at that stage that the respondent initiated suo moto proceedings against the petitioner. In Revision Petition No.17/ 2014-15 contending that there was excess land as regards which Khata had been registered in favour of the petitioner and exercising powers under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, the same was sought to be rectified. Objections having been filed by the petitioner, the said objections were disregarded by the respondent and an order was passed correcting the measurement to 36½ x 50 feet. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 4. Ms.Yogitha Mudukannavar, learned counsel for Sri Krishnamurthy M.R., appearing for the petitioner submits that the ownership of the entire extent of 36½ x 50 feet has been recognised by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike way back in the year 2004 and subsequently by the BBMP in the year 2014 suo moto proceeding in 2009. Suo moto proceeding could not have been initiated in the year 2014, resulting in the aforesaid impugned order. Her submission is that, the Corporation itself having recognised the ownership and the measurement of 36½ x 50 feet having issued Khata, if at all the BBMP had any grievance in relation there to, the same could only be agitated in a suit and in this regard she relies upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.Shivashankar v. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore reported in ILR 1994 Kar 2661 more particularly, para 7 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 “7. My attention has been invited to the provisions of Section 443(4) of the Municipal Corporation Act by the learned Counsel for the Corporation and he has submitted that there is power to suspend and revoke the entry or to modify the entry. Section 443 finds place in Chapter XXI 'Procedure and Miscellaneous'. It deals, with the general provisions regarding licences, registrations and permissions and sub-section 4 thereof prima facie shows that it is applicable to the matters of licences and permissions granted under the Act or under the Bye-law made thereunder. Such licences or permissions can be revoked or suspended by the Commissioner if the conditions referred to therein are shown to exist. It provides that suspension or revocation can be done by the Commissioner if the grantee has obtained the same by misrepresentation or fraud. Entry existing in the name of the vendor of the petitioner indicating her to be the owner of the property described thereunder and the tax imposed thereon can or cannot by itself be said to be a licence or permission. I do not express any opinion. Learned Counsel for the respondents laid emphasis on the title of Section 443 and submits that it should be taken to refer to registration as well and submitted that registration of the name of the property under a transfer Deed by a Municipal Corporation may amount to registration of the factum of transfer in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation as an information and so it is within the power of the authority to cancel or revoke the entries as well. Without expressing any opinion on this question one way or the other, even though for the sake of arguments it may be accepted that Section 443 covers such situation and provides a special provision for rectification of that entry on the ground of its being obtained or made due to misrepresentation or fraud then, when a special provision is there, then in that case it was open to the Corporation to adopt that course after having given notice to the parties affected and it is always open to them to proceed with that. Apart from that, if in the Municipal Corporation documents - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 wrong entry has been got done by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner about 10 or 12 years back and now the mistake has been detected and authorities feel or believe that a portion of the land belonged to the Corporation, it was for the Corporation to seek for declaration that the title deed of the petitioner to that extent was illegal and inoperative as the entries in their own record were the result of some misrepresentation or fraud if at all there is any fraud etc. of Smt. Munirathanamma. But on simple assumption that the entry was got made by misrepresentation or fraud, without that question being decided after a proper hearing of Smt. Munirathnamma and the petitioner, if the application for mutation is rejected or the vendee is asked to get a Deed of Rectification prepared before getting the transfer recorded that course adopted by opposite parties is illegal. In my opinion the Corporation authorities have acted illegally because the authorities should have first recorded change of transfer and thereafter taken proper course to correct the entries or revoke that entry by filing a suit for declaration of right or title extent of entry in the name of Smt. Munirathanamma or present vendee petitioner to be operative only to the extent as claimed by Corporation authorities. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the order issued by the opposite parties directing the petitioner to get a Deed of Rectification prepared changing the area transferred as mentioned from 50'x 30' to 22'x 30' is unauthorised because the Corporation itself is not entitled to determine this at this stage that they are the owners of the rest of the area without hearing the other side as well as no man can be a judge of his own case or actions. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. The endorsement dated 25-9-92 vide Annexure 'C' is hereby held to be illegal null and void and is hereby quashed being illegal and without jurisdiction. The opposite parties are directed to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 114 and record the transfer effected by that Deed but subject to the right of recourse to the provisions of law and the remedies provided by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 law in getting its own titler in respect of the disputed extent or area of land declared.” 5. By relying on Sivashankar's case, her submission is that the Corporation itself is not entitled to determine that they are the owners of the rest of the area. If at all the Corporation is affected by it, they are required to take recourse under the applicable law, get their own title declared and thereafter take necessary action. 6. In the present case, Khata has been effected way back in the year 2004 for the extent of the property of 36½ x 50 feet, no suo moto rectification could be carried out by the corporation without resorting to a declaratory relief by filing appropriate suit is the submission. 7. Sri K.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for respondents-1 to 3 would submit that action has been taken since the petitioner has encroached upon a public road. The site in question being a revenue - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 site, not having been approved by any particular authority, by misusing the same the vendor of the petitioner had encroached upon a public road and it is to remove the encroachment that the aforesaid action has been taken. 8. Heard learned counsel Ms.Yogitha Muduannavar, for Sri Krishnamurthy M.R., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the papers. 9. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is, whether the respondent- Corporation on the ground of there being misrepresentation and obtaining Khata can rectify the same on its own. 10. The facts are not in dispute. The sale deed executed by Sri R.Thangavelu was in the year 1987 along with which an affidavit had been executed by him indicating that there is an excess land of 365 square - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 feet, which is also part of the registration process of the said sale deed. Acting on the same, the respondents had issued a Khata certificate on 19.10.2004 for an area of 36½ x 50 feet, which included the said excess area. The corporation having issued such a Khata in the year 2004, the same came to be accepted by the other authorities and a gift deed for the said extent came to be executed in the year 2004. Pursuant to which, another Khata came to be issued by the respondents in the year 2009. Thus, the respondents having from 2004 accepted the measurement to be 36½ x 50 feet, it is only in the year 2014 that an allegation has been made of encroachment and action proposed to be taken. 11. Khata has been issued by the corporation, the same has been accepted by the Sub-Registrar's Office. Registration of sale deed, gift deed and a subsequent sale deed having occurred in respect to the very - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 same property with the measurement of 36½ x 50 feet, I am of the opinion that the respondent could not have suo moto initiated proceeding to correct its own error at the cost of causing harm, loss and injury to the petitioner. The petitioner having acted upon a earlier Khata issued in favour of the erstwhile owners and a sale deed registered by the jurisdictional sub-registrar in favour of the erstwhile owners. 12. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the decision in S. Shivashankar's case (supra) would apply on all fours to the present matter. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The Order dated 13.8.2019 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-Q is quashed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3685 WP No. 52462 of 2019 iii. Liberty is however reserved to the Corporation to initiate such proceedings as may be permissible under law. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15