1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29'" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. _
WRIT PETITION NO.25064 OI%'.201£)" [LE[4T%SMP1
BE I WEEN
SM'F.L.VIMALA
D/O LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT #38, 20TH CROSS
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR _
KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA A
MAGADI ROAD _
BANGALORE--_5--€§'QQ2.3 '§...PETITIONER
, A SOMANATH, ADV.,)
1.. _;THE COMMTSSIODJER
- ' 'BRIJTIAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
. 3 N R
= vSANGAALORE--56000 1
2} "THE OEROW COMMISSIONER
BREURAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
SAT-{GALORE WEST, BANGALORE
I ~ 3_ * ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
.aV1JAYANAGAR ZONE, 1ST FLOOR
BBMP SWIMMING POOL
97"" CROSS, HAMPINAGAR
VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE
BANGALORE-560040
4. SRI BGOVARDHAN
S/O SHAN'I"I-IA NAIK
2
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT No.3, "SHREYAS"
PURNAPURA, CHINNAPPA GARDEN :
BANGALORE--560054 RESPOPJDENTS
(BY SRI:K.N.PUTTE GOWDA, ADV., EORi---IaI'4f{S'Gf~t -
R4 Served]
THIS WRIT PETI'I'ION IS FILED Ar<TicIgE:G"2ge":~
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION'OE_INDIA~.I3RATI¢NG"~To-.p
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.*.?.1'o
PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE ANN EX't._TRE--A
THIS PETITION COMING... --»..FOR " 'PVRELEMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, T1»;E~~eo{_IRT FOLLOWING:
The petitioner hasg raiseldy'.j£h<§._..:Vi§h3llenge to the
endorSerne1_i1t,'VI.vV. dated (AnneXure--A} turning
down the 'petitiVo1I:te'r§S for the transfer of Khatha.
2. the learned counsel for
V. _the._'p3'eti;tfiOrIuper that the petitioner has purchased
property» ln~--.queStiOn by a registered Sale deed from
Mudaliar. He also Submits that the
'r__petitio~r1er'S Vendor had the Khatha Standing in his
"if in respect of the property in question. According
to? the learned counsel, the fourth respondent, who has
filed the objections to the petitiOner’S application for the
change of Khatha is a total Stranger to the property in
fig}!
question. Based on a sham document, the fourth
respondent is objecting to the petitioner’s application for
the change of Khatha.
3. Sri Somanath further submits V.
petitioner’s property is situated on 2031
Road, Bangalore, whereas the
property is situated on 91 91:5 1 Roa’d,’VX
Bangalore. He submitsdyadthat the'”‘e–boundaries,
measurement and .,of..pthe up_etitioner’s
property and the fou_rt:h..VV property are
entirely di_fferent..__ «.
4. it qSri ‘ the learned Counsel
appearing for’*the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that,
Zastdwo are advancing their claim over the Very
BBMP officials have thought it fit not
V . to deterrniiie the questions of title. He also brings to my
id «_n’oti__(‘_:e that the impugned endorsement is the second in
‘series. He takes exception to the petitioner not
” “producing the first endorsement, dated 31. l.2007.
63%
4
5. The respondent No.4 is served. but has
remained unrepresented.
6. For the reasons best known to it
she has not challenged the earlier” e’n.do’rse.rn,ent,
31.1.2007 issued by the BBMP. 1:”se1e’.consic1er’abi~e .
in the submission of Sri Puttego\>irde._V’th.8′;t ‘not
advisable for the deterrfrine the
questions of title. The which is
impugned in; to be only
reiteration of tiie. eai’1ier”e’iadorisensgent.
‘ Myvthe impugned endorsement
reveals thatptherthird”respondent has not fully applied
his,_’:rr9.ind’ to theof the petitioner, much less to the
‘stat’a.tAo;:’y”iprovisions. Section 114(1) and (3) of the
Karnata1tav’V’f.Mti.nicipal Corporations Act, 1976 reads as
1 ‘ ._,fo1io\iv::- V
_ “I14. Obligation of transferor and
“transferee to give notice of transfer –
(1) Whenever the title of any person
primarily liable to the payment of the property tax
on any premises to or over such premises is
transferred, the person whose title is transferred
331%,
5
and the person to whom the same is transferred
shall, within three months after the execution of’
the instrument of transfer or after its registration
if it be registered or after the transfer is j 4′
if no instrument be executed, give notice_of.su£.’lh _
transfer to the Commissioner.
{izjxxxxxxxx I V % V
(3) Whenever such”-transfer Veorr1esTtoi._’vth,eV
knowledge of the Comrnisislioner or authorised
oficer through s”ue_h narrnelvvof
transferee shall property tax
régister. f ‘
hhhh laplpllication for the transfer
of Khatha is to just because somebody files
the Objectioiifi. ‘5f’he.”-cohcerried officer has to examine
. . ,.,4;I?!5’t.e1i»abilit.y of themobjections, of course Without going
of title. If there are serious disputes
as “to t_he.Vt’title of the property or the identity of the
ll”4″‘–.lVV”‘propert3r: itself, the BBMP officer would be well within
power not to change the effect of Khatha but to call
~-upon the parties to approach the Civil Court. Bowever,
if the objections are absolutely frivolous and untenable,
the BBMP officer has to reject them and issue the
55’!
Khatha to the applicant on being satisfied of the
transfer of the property.
9. The ends of justice would 1:_3e__V’:’m:et
directing the third respondent tozhthhe
and the fourth respondent: for eriqfiiry. hea§ringd.”‘rp
them and considering the them,
the third respondent shall in matter.
10. This.lpetitiQ’n”is_”Vaceord–ingly2«disposed of. No
order as to;’Cos_t.s:”V»v-7:V–__ V
Sd/–
Judge