Writ Petition No. 25635 of 2016 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 25635 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1 . SRI.G BHAGWANDAS SHARMA S/O LATE G D SHARMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.30, NORRIS ROAD RUSTUMJI APARTMENTS FLAT C-4 3RD FLOOR, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALRORE-560054 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.D.SURANA,ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2 . JOIN COMMISSIONER (EAST) B.B.M.P. MAYO HALL, BANGALORE-560001 3 . ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER VASANTHANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560001 4 . SMT KRISHNAVATHI SHARMA W/O LATE G D SHARMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, NO.718, SECOND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BANNIMANTAPA, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 MYSORE-570015 (BYSRI.K.V.MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3; SMT. JYOTHI BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED:01.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 16.01.2025, COMING ON CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA 1. This petition is filed challenging the endorsement CAV ORDER issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') whereby it has set aside the bifurcation of khata made in respect of the petitioner and restored the khata in favour of the 4th respondent in whose name it was only stood. 2. The petitioner is the son of the 4th respondent. According to him, his father had purchased the property bearing No.10/1, Palace Road under three - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 registered sale deeds. The petitioner however admits that it was purchased in the name of the 4th
Legal Reasoning
respondent herein, who was stated to be the first wife of his father. 3. It is also stated that the petitioner’s father had constituted a partnership firm along with his wives, his mother and brother, under the name and style of M/s. Krishnasathi and Company (for short “firm”) and to this firm the 4th respondent had contributed the property as her share on the capital of the firm and, consequently, the property became the property of the firm. 4. It is contended that the firm was dissolved by way of a Dissolution Deed dated 01.05.1985 and the property was divided amongst the partners and under the said dissolution, the 3rd floor was allotted to the petitioner, and the remaining floors were allotted to others. It is sought to be contended that upon such dissolution, the partners to whom - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 different portions were allotted were in possession of their respective portions. 5. It is stated that an application was preferred by the petitioner and two other family members seeking for bifurcation of the khata, so that each floor would get a separate and distinct number, and this request of the petitioner was accepted by the municipal authorities under an order dated 19.02.2010. 6. It is also stated that the petitioner’s step mother Premavathi had executed a Gift Deed dated 14.10.2009 under which she gifted her share in favour of the petitioner and his brother and on the basis of this gift deed, they had sought for bifurcation of khata and this request was also acceded to and the property gifted was registered jointly in the name of the petitioner as well as his brother. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 7. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent (his mother) being aggrieved by the bifurcation of khata filed a petition seeking for review as provided under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short the “KMC Act”) and the reviewing authority set aside the bifurcation of khata and has ordered its restoration in favour of the 4th respondent and pursuant to this order, the impugned communication has been made, which according to his is illegal and hence the petitioner is before this Court. 8.
Decision
In the writ petition, it may also be pertinent to state here that the petitioner contends that property-in- question i.e., property bearing No.10/1 was the property of the family and was purchased in the name of the 4th respondent, who incidentally is his mother. He further seeks to contend that since she had no income, the property was purchased in her name and, therefore, the property was the property of the family and not her individual property. In fact, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 at paragraph No.12(a) of the amended petition reads as follows: “12(a): That, the property bearing No.10/1, Palace Road was the property of the family and it was purchased in the name of the petitioner’s mother, the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had no income of her to purchase the said property, she was only a housewife”. 9. The petitioner also contends that this property was brought into the firm by the 4th respondent and thus it became the property of the firm. The fact, however, remains that the property was, admittedly, purchased in the name of the 4th respondent. 10. The 4th respondent has also produced copies of the Registered Sale Deeds under which the property was purchased by her. The 4th respondent, along with a memo dated 19.02.2023 has also produced the khata certificate dated 31.01.1981, which also certifies that the khata of the property bearing No.10/1, Palace Road was standing in the name of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 the 4th respondent in the registers of the Corporation. 11. As already stated above, the petitioner contends that this property was brought into the firm by the 4th respondent as her share and on dissolution of that firm, a portion of the property was allotted to the petitioner and another portion was allotted to another member of the family, who ultimately gifted the said portion to the petitioner and his brother. It is therefore clear that the petitioner is not claiming that the property was transferred in his favour under any registered document. 12. It is also the admitted case of the parties including the petitioner that the petitioner along with his brother and Premavathi have instituted a suit in O.S.No.5735/2008 seeking for partition of the firm and the said suit is still pending consideration. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 13. It may be pertinent to state here that the petitioner has himself produced the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1978 (Annexure- G) to his application for amendment of the writ petition, in which the 4th respondent has been shown as the 1st partner. In this Partnership Deed, it is stated as follows: “WHEREAS, the above referred first partner had purchased the plot at No.10/1, Palace Road, Bangalore and started construction thereon”. 14. This particular document produced by the petitioner would clearly establish that the petitioner admits that the property was purchased in the name of the 4th respondent. 15. The Authorities have entertained the application for bifurcation of khata on the basis of the Dissolution Deed. The 4th respondent has produced the order by which the khata has been bifurcated and this also indicates that the khata was bifurcated only on the basis of Dissolution Deed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 16. The Joint Commissioner while considering the review petition has taken note of the fact that the petitioner, his brother and Premavathi have instituted a suit, which was pending consideration, and they had also admitted that the property had been purchased in the name of the 4th respondent. 17. The Joint Commissioner has therefore concluded that since it was the admitted case of the petitioner that the property had been purchased in the name of the 4th respondent and the khata was all along standing in her name, the same could not be bifurcated and that too without notice to her. The Joint Commissioner has, accordingly, allowed the petition filed by the 4th respondent for bifurcation khata by giving the following reasoning: “10. It is an admitted fact that the partition suit in OS 5735/08 is pending before the City Civil Court and Interim Order of status quo is ordered by the Court in the said case. The respondents 2 to 4 have admitted that the property was purchased in the name of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 petitioner. According to respondents 2 to 4, they got the khata bifurcated on the basis of an unregistered dissolution dated 1.5.1985 and Gift dated 14-10-1910. The documents produced in this case will clearly indicate that no notice has been issued to the petitioner before bifurcating the khata in question. In fact, respondent 4 has taken the contention that there was no necessity to issue notice. The documents produced in this case also clearly indicate that the respondents 2 to 4 have applied for bifurcation of transfer of khata after a period of 25 long years. 11. It is a well settled principle that this authority has no right to decide the title to the property. It is only the City Civil Court which has got the jurisdiction to decide the title to the property in question. 12. In spite of it, the respondent-1 has bifurcated the khata on the basis of the photocopy of unregistered dissolution deed without giving an opportunity to the previous khata holder. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the action taken by the 1st respondent in bifurcating the khata of the property in question by the order dated 20-04-2010 is clearly against the principles of natural justice - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 and the documents produced will clearly indicate that respondent 2 to 4 have obtained the order of khata in their favour by suppressing material fact”. 18. As could be seen from the above, the Joint Commissioner has noticed that the khata in respect of the property-in-question was all along standing in the name of the 4th respondent and the application for bifurcation had been made after a period of 25 years on the basis of an unregistered Dissolution Deed and a consequential Gift Deed for a person claiming under this unregistered Dissolution Deed. 19. The Joint Commissioner has also taken note of the fact that there is also a Civil suit pending in O.S.No.5735/2008 in respect of a portion of the property and, therefore, there could have been no justification for bifurcation of the khata standing in the name of the 4th respondent, in the name of the petitioner or others. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 20. Since it is admitted that the property was purchased in the name of the 4th respondent, it is obvious that she is the owner of the property and the khata would have to be registered only in her name. As the khata had been standing in her name for more than 25 years, the Joint Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that the same could not be bifurcated on the basis of an unregistered Dissolution Deed and a consequential Gift Deed based on this Dissolution Deed. 21. However, learned counsel, Sri.P.D.Surana, seeks to contend that the suit that has been filed in respect of the portion of the property and, therefore, that could not be a reason for setting aside the order bifurcating the khata. He also contends that the petitioner had not challenged a special notice, which had been issued under Section 108A of the KMC Act (Annexure – B), in which the khata had been bifurcated in - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 respect of others and therefore the petition that the 4th respondent has filed would be untenable. 22. He also seeks to contend that the property was essentially a property of the firm and if the bifurcation was to be set aside, the khata ought to be restored in favour of the firm. He also argues that there are Registered Lease Deed executed by a firm and also the eviction proceedings initiated by the firm and therefore this would also indicate that the property was that of the firm. 23. Learned counsel also submits that the 4th respondent had filed the written statement in which she had admitted that she had brought the property into the firm as her share on the capital and she had also admitted that the firm had been dissolved and different floors had been allotted to different partners and, therefore, there being no dispute regarding the Dissolution Deed. The bifurcation of the khata made - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 on the basis of the dissolution cannot be found fault with. 24. In my view, none of these arguments are tenable. Section 114 of the KMC Act makes it clear that whenever the title of any person, who was primarily liable to pay the property tax, is transferred, the said person along with the transferee is required to make a report within three months after the execution of the instrument or after its registration about the transfer to the Commissioner. This, therefore, indicates that the municipal entries can be transferred only on there being a transfer of title from the existing khatedar under a registered instrument of transfer. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no registration instrument by which the 4th respondent transferred her title in favour of the petitioner or any other person. Consequently, the authorities had no jurisdiction to bifurcate the khata on the basis of an unregistered deed of dissolution of the firm, more so when the Khata had been - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 registered in the name of the 4th respondent on the basis of a registered sale deed. 25. It may be pertinent to state here that the Corporation is entitled to change the entries only if the khatedar transfers his title under a registered instrument. The only exception to this Rule is when khatedar dies and the Corporation under Section114(2) is entitled to transfer the same to the heir of the deceased. Thus, unless there is a transfer as contemplated under Section 114 (1) of the KMC Act i.e., by way of registered instrument, the Corporation cannot change the municipal entries standing in the name of a khatedar. 26. If there are rival claims to the property, it is obvious that those claims will have to be adjudicated in a manner known to law before the appropriate authority and only if the Court of Competent Jurisdiction determines the rights and grants a - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 decree, can the Corporation act upon the said decree. 27. The entire set of arguments being advanced by the petitioner are essentially arguments which cannot be considered by the Corporation Authorities when a request is made for transfer of khata. The Corporation Authorities could not have accepted the request that there had been a transfer on the basis of a unregistered Dissolution Deed. In fact, the Joint Commissioner has taken note of the fact that the khata which was standing in the name of the 4th respondent for more than 25 years was sought to be transferred, even without notice to her and, also in the background of the fact that a Civil suit was pending between the petitioner, the 4th respondent and other persons. 28. I am therefore of the view that there is absolutely no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 petitioner and the writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 29. The Corporation shall restore the khata, if not already restored, in the name of the 4th respondent and her name shall be continued until there is a transfer of title from her in a manner known to law as contemplated under Section 114 of the KMC Act or until a Court of Competent Jurisdiction passes a decree declaring the entitlement of a claimant to the property to which she is a party. 30. This writ petition is therefore dismissed and as a consequence, the BBMP shall restore the Khata in favour of the 4th respondent immediately. 31. It is needless to state that any observations made herein shall not be construed as rendering any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, which shall be adjudicated upon by a competent Court if a claim is made by him in a manner known - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:4106 WP No. 25635 of 2016 to law in respect of the property in question in an appropriate proceeding. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83