ORAL ORDER

Petitioner claims to be the owner of property bearing Sy.No.618 and 619 measuring East to West 30 meters and North to South 24 meters totally measuring 720 square meters situated at BSK VI Stage having purchased the same through deed of sale dated 07.08.2023 from one Sri.Y.Ramachandra Naidu who in turn had purchased the same from one Sri.A.D.Narayana Reddy. That the petitioner had sought for registration of khatha in respect of the aforesaid property at the hands of respondent No.1-BDA. Application was submitted through online process on 01.09.2024 and representation was also given on 13.10.2023 along with required documents. However, respondent No.1-BDA without responding to the same had uploaded an endorsement on its website produced at Annexure-H giving completely different and distinct reasons. In that under the heading "Service Requested" it is mentioned as "obtaining transfer of khatha following death of a property owner or based on the WILL of the deceased". Without citing any reason whatsoever under the heading "Application Status" it is mentioned as "Rejected on 22.08.2024" and under the heading "Description/Reason for Rejection" it is mentioned as "REJECTED".

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the aforesaid endorsement submits that the endorsement which is uploaded as found at Annexure-H is one without application of mind indicating dereliction of duty on the part of respondent authorities in discharging the statutory duties. She submits that when the petitioner sought for registration of khatha based on title deeds, question of petitioner seeking transfer of khatha on inheritance or as legatee does not arise besides, the reasons for rejection of the application are not made known. Hence, seeks for quashing of Annexure-H and seeks further direction to respondent-BDA to re-

consider the application of the petitioner.

3. In response learned counsel for respondent-BDA submits on instruction that respondent-BDA had indeed called upon the petitioner to furnish the sanction plan of building which is put up on the subject property.

4. He further submits that the building existing thereon is one without a valid sanction plan to which petitioner has expressed its non availability. He submits even if the application is reconsidered, for want of sanction plan, the respondent-BDA would not be in a position to grant the khatha. He further submits that regularisation of unauthorised construction comes within the purview of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Hence, he submits respondent-BDA would not be in a position to re-consider the application. However he fairly submits that in the endorsement which is uploaded reason assigned is incorrect.

5. In response learned counsel for petitioner submits that the building was constructed by Sri.A.D.Narayana Reddy vendor of vendor of the petitioner and khatha was issued originally in his name by amalgamating the two sites. Subsequent thereto Sri.Y.Ramachandra Naidu the vendor of the petitioner also got his name mutated in the revenue records. Subsequent to purchase of the said property it is only when petitioner had sought for transfer of khatha the respondent authorities have rejected the same. Since khatha had already been registered in the name of vendor of vendor of the petitioner subsequently in the name of vendor of the petitioner without raising any issue with regard to the construction, the respondent-BDA may be directed to consider the circumstances under which said khatha was registered and pass appropriate orders as permissible under law.

6. Heard and perused the records.

7. Admittedly endorsement at Annexure-H has been issued without application of mind. The reasons mentioned for rejection is contrary to the requisition made by the petitioner and documents produced therewith. Impugned endorsement at Annexure-H is therefore liable to be quashed on that ground alone. Further the issue now raised regarding the building constructed is without sanction plan,