IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23*" DAY OF AUGUST 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCH_IGE"RI
WRIT PETITION No. 3785701'2C§.D§V('LB~,.R'ES)-;'
BETWEEN:
SMT S HEMALATHA
D/O LATE SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ,
NO.D2, CHARTERED SANNIDHI
APARTMENTS No.17
SANNIDHI ROAD
BASAVANAGUD1 I Y. 1
BANGALORE-560 0:34 : j...PETITIONER
(BY SRI §HAjSH:':vCIEDKH'AlfkA;ADVOCATE)
AND: '
1. THE ADDETIQNAL CO'MMISSI.ONER (EAST)
AND COMFETENT O_FF'E.C--'ER"---.___
BRUHATH BANGALOREMAHANAGARA PALIKE
MAYQHALL, M G,RO'A'D ' '
I BANGALORE -560-0.0_1 _
2.", *1fH'E .VASSISTA:NT REVENUE OFFICER
'E...BRUHATH,.BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
S.HA{\5TH1NAGA.R~RANGE,
BANGALORE. 3.360 025
I J vISHAK..
' 5/0 S BAGADEESHKUMAR
A AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
I KEERTHISHREE
___D/O S JAGADEESHKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S IAGADEESH KUMAR
S/O LATE K SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
(RESPONDENTS 3-5 ARE
R/A No. 778, 10″” MAIN ROAD
INDIRANAGAR II STAGE
BANGALORE – 560 038)
6. KRUTHII-(A
(SINCE MINOR ~– REPRESENTED BY
HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER
S MOHAN KUMAR) R/A 292
107″ MAIN, 3.7″ CROSS A
INDIRANAGAR, ‘ _ .
BANGALORE — 560 038 ‘RESPONDENTS
(By SRI K.N.PUTTEG_OWDA, FOR R:-I,_ AND ‘2″,’~
SRI H.KUMARA’SWAM’Y FOR R~.–_’3».TO ,5,
SR1 M.S.cHANDRAcHOODA FOR R-S, FTAENOGATES)
THIS WRIT ;’PE’?_iTIG’iV’3′.,_!S ‘F_f£’–!.E’D 0NDER_ARTIcLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTI’§’1JTI.Ol\.l OF .IN*D_IA “PRA’}{ING TO QUASH ORDER
PASSED IN APPEAL,No.28S3,/20_07._DATE-D…1206.2009 BY THE R1 VIDE
ANx–A AND ALSO THE;..END.ORSE’M_ENT DATED 20.09.2007, ISSUED BY
THE R2 VIDE ‘AN><–B,A A'ND'–ALL,F'U.R'§'HER PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.
THIS wRIT.pET:T'I'O_N"GONTING ON FOR PRLY. HG. IN 'B' GROUP
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THEFOLLOWING:
(RDER
*VAK.”N.’P:I’tteg–owda, the learned Standing Counsel for
T’=..__BBMPDis’directe’dri’t0F1’take notice for the respondent NoS.1 and 2.
2. ‘1’~~he’t. petitioner has raised the challenge to the
7._’_’V”e’nd:0’rseTnent, dated 20.09.2007 (Annexure~B) and the first
” V–Vf’AreS§3on;c£ent’s order, dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure–~A).
3
3. The facts of the case in brief are that one Sri
K.Subbanna has executed the registered Will, dated 17.09.2005.
He died on 01.03.2007. The beneficiaries of the Wiii —- hiyyslslons,
grand sons and grand daughters sought the registra;tion.’VV~o..f:the
khatha in their name in respect of the properti_es.’v_Aijri»_qu.estion.”
The petitioner is the daughter of the said
seriously disputed the authenticitysof the”‘–‘..!l_I’ili. The773revsploritgieritVi’,
No.2 overruied the objections of theaipetitionler issuing the
endorsement, dated 20.09.2040? that the:rpetAi’tioner have to
approach the Civil Court. ‘l’h_e .peti_tione’r’..:’cna;lEenged the said
order by filing a pé-titi”on”; b’efo’r’e”‘the’ first respondent
invoking Section ‘iiiliéito-f:the’i’-l{a’rn’ataka Municipal Corporations
Act, 1975 (for The first respondent confirmed
th£’w.’SeC0_F-‘cf réspond.e”n~tTs_____or.der and dismissed the petitioner’s
peltitiorfby dVivrec’tiVn’g___the concerned authorities to change the
17*__khathato’the.’na’rne’s=.’of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
gThes.e’two orders are impugned in this petition by Sri
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
“petiti_oner, Smt S.Hemalatha. He submits that the petitioner is
Vllv.:lthe:~V’daughter of late Subbanna and further that the late
FIBH.
4
Subbanna had effected the partition amongst his issues. He
further stibmits that as Subbanna was down with cancer,VVtie’was
not in a position to go to the Sub-Registrar’s
bedridden and was compieteiy immobilized.
5. Sri Shashidhar brings to R1Y:=..’D0:t:Et£Q.
decision of this Court in the case of
me SPECIAL oepuw com»iiI.sIoVi~ieiz’,-. iEsiANl<;ALROE
DISTRICT mo omens, items iri'.AILitf2oo2 xii: 2750 to
advance the contentionthat tA_hey:l"revenii:e a'ut.hoV.rjiVti~es do not have
the competence tcfy "qxue'sttio'n"'vo«f»:title. Once the
petitioner eitecdtion of the Will, the
respondent Nos,_j1"and in the matter and effect
the change–of1khath.au in.v'faA\}'oiir:of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
"'reéIe\raant5»-."o:.pa'ragra'ph"Woi the said judgment is extracted
herei V
'A "Sp tfoiisidering Rule 43 when a person claims
'gtitle toproperty under a Will for the purpose of
hxggetting a mutation entry in the revenue records
before any such entry is made the Revenue Court
…Sl50uId priina facie be satisfied that the said
documents is genuine and valid even in the absence
of any dispute as the said Will comes in the way of
BM.
natural succession. By virtue of Section 128 when___
the owner of the land dies, the title to the
property passed on to the legal heir by successicm or: -.
survivorship or inheritance and the propertyfi’/ests:
with such a legal heir without_the_re bein”g{‘_an”y
document and purely based on the relationship
the deceased with the legal_.h_eir. *AA'”will can.’gcon1e ”
into operation only after the of. the ‘exe’:_;u’tan’t;’
If a Will is set up to deprive_..aV:’lega_l heir’-who had
acquired title to the property either’»b’y.,succession,
survivorship or inheritance, claiming
under the Will to the Will is
disputed strir;t_ proof /_Wil_l required under
Sections__V6V3r..;ano’,:64V” Act is to be
provided. it ‘A i’%;*’.i/.”here7”;’f,t:he: ‘ ‘re.’venu’e””Court is prevented
from reco’rding_ the parties and the
depositions, ” of establishing the
genuineness of_th’e Will for any purpose whatsoever
bei’ore:,.,”thel’..revenue'”Court in an enquiry would not
arise. these circumstances, the revenue
‘Courts no jurisdiction to go into the
ge”nuin.e-nests or validity of the Will or to the question
of titieiiw respect of the land in dispute. The decision
A 57 ofthe Revenue Court has to be necessarily based on
tthlehiundisputed facts. The Revenue Court cannot go
” -into the disputed questions of relationship, status of
the parties title to the property or genuineness or
otherwise of a document or challenge to the
HBH.
provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 are not in pari materia
with the provisions contained in the KMC Act’ regardii’ujj’«–.th-ei
transfer of khatha. He had also relied on the
Court in the case of APPASAB
oer-vurv commssxouea, BELGAUM o<:smx«:;:~ LA-Njiiaip
omens, reported in 2oos(6)illi{a.~;,L.J;iii Jt.5~6VVl'lw'hereitfi.. ";the i '
Assistant Commissioner's order that :3. party 'ha–s._to.i§ seek a
declaration from the competent~ coins: the win is
upheld.
7. Sri llearhled counsel for the
respondent i§ios.H1’_A impugned orders and
pray for the dAi’srni’ssai’
A_ 8. _T’ii1evql’uestioV’n”thatfalls for my consideration is –
ffVi’hyet.her respondent Nos.1 and 2 are right in
‘efiectirigVu.theA’a:=.c’hange of khatha in respect of the
propeyrtiveshlivn question in the light of the registered
W’iii._des’pite the objections raised by the petitioner?”
it 9. The Full Bench of this Court has taken the considered
«ijview that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the
Q3}!
authorised officer shall enter the name of the transferee in the
property tax register. Its provisions are extracted hereinbeleniacn
“114(3) Whenever such transfer comesnnto’-..:the=:Vi”
knowledge of the Commissioner or:’a’Lithorisied
through such notice the name of the tifar;~sfere_e”~s_haII’if-».,._
be entered in the property ta2:ire_giste’r.__”””
11. The khatha is not as._such;”i’t””iVs only a
fiscal entry. It only enables ‘property tax to
the B.B.M.P. Base_dc;;n:ly on thee’:reglstlratlonfl or the khatha in
favour of the party, thevproperty. Considering
all these aspectsllllrnattler, _ thheflvdecision to register the
khatha in favourllof the of the registered Will cannot
be foundjfault with;-V_lNhile’confirming the impugned orders, two
ridnerg « E ‘to posed :
lregilstration of the khatha in favour of the
A betieficlaries of the Will shall be subject to the out
Lorne of the suit, if any.
Based only on the khatha standing in favour of the
l respondent N053 and 4, they shall not get the right
to sell the property.
HRH.
12. In the resuit, the chaiienge to the impugned orders is
negative-d but by adding the two riders. This petition is all
in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.
bvr
Gwéd