Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 21681
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS, J
MRS. GEETA SANJAY VHATKAR – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (MAHADEVAPURA ZONE) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP 1012/2023
SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE; SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R9; SRI. K.K. VASANTH., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R10
Municipal authorities cannot question the validity of registered documents or civil court judgments regarding property transfers, emphasizing adherence to established legal principles.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - Section 114 - BBMP Act, 2020 - Transfer of khata - Petitioner acquired rights under a Gift Deed but faced rejection by the Joint Commissioner citing lack of possession and other objections - Court found the Joint Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by questioning the validity of the Gift Deed and civil court's judgment - The matter remitted back for reconsideration under the BBMP Act, 2020. (Paras 4, 8, 11)
(B) Jurisdiction of Municipal Authorities - Municipal authorities cannot question or sit over the judgments of civil courts regarding property transfers - The decision must respect the registered documents and existing rights of parties involved. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Joint Commissioner's order rejecting her khata registration claim based on a Gift Deed. The original land was converted to non-agricultural use, and the petitioner’s brother had previously obtained sale deeds through court orders.
Findings of Court:
The Joint Commissioner’s order was quashed for exceeding jurisdiction and failing to recognize the civil court's authority over property rights.
Issues: Whether the Joint Commissioner could question the validity of the Gift Deed and the civil court's decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that municipal authorities cannot question the validity of registered documents or the civil court's decisions, emphasizing the need for adherence to established legal principles.
Result: Writ petition allowed in part; impugned order quashed and remitted back for reconsideration.
Although this matter is coming up for “Hearing – Interlocutory Application’, with the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner who is said to have acquired right, title and interest under a registered Gift Deed dated 09.12.2016 is aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-Y dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru in the matter of transfer of khata.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar.S.Patil, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s brother Sri Ravi Puravankara entered into Agreements of Sale dated 03.11.1994 and 29.10.1994 with the original land owners, respondents No.3 to 9 herein for purchasing 5 acres of land in Sy.No.26/1 to 26/9, all situated at Junnasandra Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the entire 5 acres of land were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes by way of 9 different orders passed by the competent authority during the year 1995-96, the details of which are also given in paragraph No.6 in the writ petition. When the original land owners did not come forward to execute the sale deeds in favour of Sri Ravi Puravankara, the said Sri Ravi Puravankara filed original suits in O.S.Nos.862/1996; 921/1996;
1003/1996;
1004/1996;
1005/1995;
1006/1996 and 1007/1996 before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District seeking specific performance of the contract. The suits were decreed by way of a judgment dated 10.06.2006. Thereafter execution case was filed by Sri Ravi Puravankara and consequently the court executed seven sale deeds in favour of Sri Ravi Puravankara on 14.08.2009. Thereafter Sri Ravi Puravankara executed a registered Gift Deed dated 09.12.2016 in favour of the petitioner, who is none other than the sister of Sri Ravi Puravankara conveying the entire extent of 5 acres to the petitioners.
Consequent to the execution of the Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the competent authority of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for registration of khata in her name in respect of the schedule properties in terms of the Gift Deed. When the competent authority did not pass any order and when the petitioner insisted that her case for registration of kahta should be considered, the matter was taken up as an appeal at the hands of the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru. The Joint Commissioner has passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on various grounds.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar.S.Patil, submits that a plain reading of the impugned order clearly shows that the Joint Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction. The Joint Commissioner has sought to sit over the judgment and decree passed by the civil court.
The Joint Commissioner is of the opinion that although the court executed sale deeds in favour of Sri Ravi Puravankara in the year 2009, nevertheless he did not take actual possession of the suit schedule properties. On the other hand, Sri Ravi Puravankara executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner only in the year 2016 and therefore the delay for seeking transfer of khata was not explained. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in terms of the relevant provision namely Section 114 of the than Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act , 1976, as and when the title is transferred from the previous khatedar, it would be the bounded duty of the Commissioner to transfer the khata in terms of the registered instruments.
Learned Senior Counsel further draws the attention of this court to the impugned order and submits that the Joint Commissioner has gone to the extent of considering the objections raised at the hands of the contesting respondents herein, more particularly the impleading applicant Sri K.V.Kupparaju and has held that it is well established principles of law that no Gift Deed is valid, unle
