Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 1033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Sharmada B.K. – Appellant
Versus
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14352 of 2023 (LB-BMP)
Decided On : 23-11-2023
Uday Holla, Advocate, Jayakumar N.D., Advocate, N.R.Jagadeeswara, Advocate, M.S.Nagaraja, Advocate
The court established that the BBMP must act on registered release deeds and ensure accurate record-keeping, highlighting the importance of verifying the authenticity of documents before rejecting applications related to property ownership.
Headnote:
Katha - Property Ownership Dispute - BBMP Act, Sec. 149 - The court discussed the provisions of the BBMP Act, particularly Section 149, which pertains to the maintenance and alteration of Katha records. The court emphasized the importance of accurate record-keeping and the need for the BBMP to act on registered release deeds. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to quash the endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application for a change in Katha, highlighting the necessity for the corporation to verify documents and ensure proper administrative processes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a practicing dentist, sought to quash a BBMP endorsement rejecting her application to change the Katha of her property following a registered release deed from her parents. The BBMP had issued a Katha in favor of the petitioner and her parents, but objections were raised by other parties claiming rights over the same property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the BBMP's rejection of the petitioner's application was based on unverified claims and contradictions regarding the existence of Katha records. The court verified the petitioner's claims through the BBMP property tax portal, confirming the Katha was indeed in her name and her parents'.
Issues: The main issues included whether the BBMP's endorsement rejecting the Katha change was valid, the authenticity of the documents presented by both parties, and the procedural correctness of the BBMP's actions in light of the release deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have her Katha updated to reflect her sole ownership following the release deed, as the objections raised by the other parties were not substantiated. The court emphasized the need for the BBMP to maintain accurate records and verify the authenticity of documents before making decisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the BBMP's endorsement was quashed, and the BBMP was directed to update the Katha in accordance with the release deed within 30 days. The court also noted that aggrieved parties could seek relief through civil court if necessary.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash endorsement bearing No. DA/182/KTR/409/22-23 dtd. 28/1/2023, at Annexure-J of the 2nd respondent.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to bring the khata of the Schedule Property in conformity with the registered release deed dtd. 30/8/2021 at Annexure-E and to issue consequential endorsement to the petitioner in accordance with Sec. 149 of the BBMP Act.
c. Grant such other order or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner claims to be a practicing dentist who, along with her parents on 18/1/2013, purchased site bearing No.31 carved out of Sy.No.123 and 131, (old No.71), Kathriguppe Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk now identified as site No.31, 4th Phase, 7th Main, Rajiv Nagar, Banashankari, 3rd Stage, Padmanabha Nagar, Bengaluru. Prior to the said purchase, a Katha issued by the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) as regards the said property stood in the name of the vendors of the petitioner. Post the purchase the Katha was transferred in the name of the petitioner and her parents.
3. In the year 2021, the parents of the petitioner released their right, title, or interest in favour of the petitioner under a registered release deed dtd. 30/8/2021. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made an application for necessary change in the Katha inasmuch as she sought for the deletion of the names of her parents since she was now the exclusive owner of the property. The said request made by the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondent Corporation on the ground that there were objections filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 wherein respondent Nos.3 and 4 claimed right, title, and interest over the very same property and in regard thereto, they had produced another Katha which had been issued by the BBMP in their favour, as also documents evidencing that they had made payment of betterment fees, etc. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that:
4.1. The Katha of the site No.31 having already stood in the name of the petitioner, her father, and mother, what is now sought for is only the deletion of the name of the parents of the petitioner on account of the release deed, it is not a new Katha which has been sought for.
4.2. The contention which had been urged on behalf of the corporation is that the documents which had been produced, namely the Katha and assessment extracts at Annexures-D and C, were fabricated are completely false.
4.3. He submits that along with the documents filed the petitioner has produced the snapshot of the property tax portal of the BBMP, which indicates that, the PID number of the property in question when input would reflect the name of the petitioner and her parents. He submits that this Court could also verify the same from the said portal.
4.4. Thus, he submits that BBMP has issued a Katha in respect of the very same property, it stands in the name of the petitioner and her parents. Once the release deed has been executed, it is the duty of the corporation to carry out necessary changes in the Katha in terms of the release deed and not reject it merely on the objections filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4.
5. Sri. N.R.Jagadeeswara, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that
5.1. he has been instructed by the concerned ARO that Annexures-B and C which had been produced along with the petitioner, are not available on the records of the Corporation. Thus, he submits that there is no Katha in the name of the petitioner and her parents requiring any change to be made.
5.2. Since there is an objection raised by respondent Nos.3 and 4 as regards the application made by the petitioner. Taking into consideration the documents which have been produced by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the
