The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of

mandamus to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to transfer the

katha of the property in Sy.No.39/4 of Doddakallasandra,

Uttarahalli Hobli to the name of the petitioner in view of an

order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 03.09.2012

and

pronounced

on

03.10.2012

bearing

No.BBMP/NyaVya/CR/22/2012-13.

The petitioner claims to have purchased

3 parcels of land in Sy.No.39/4 of Doddakallasandra each

measuring 16,899 Sq.ft., in terms of 3 separate deeds of

sale. Since the names of the vendor of the petitioner was

entered in Form No.B issued by the respondent No.2, the

petitioner requested the respondents to enter its name in

Form No.B. This was turned down by the respondent on

the ground that the respondents had discontinued issuing

B-Khata. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application

with the respondents for issuance of katha in respect of

5

the aforesaid property. When things stood thus, the

respondent No.5 and two others (Mr.Venkatesh and

Smt.Muniyamma) lodged objections against the transfer of

katha to the name of the petitioner. The respondent No.4

addressed a letter dated 13.10.2011 informing the

petitioner that the property in question was the subject

matter of O.S.No.8973/2006 and O.S.No.6873/2009 and

called upon the petitioner to indicate the status of the said

suits. The petitioner claims that since the respondents

were dillydallying over entering its name in the katha, it

filed W.P.No.16329/2012 for a direction to the respondents

therein to transfer the katha of the property in question to

the name of the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed

off directing the respondent No.2 to consider the request

of the petitioner in accordance with law. The respondent

No.3 after continued persuasion passed an order dated

30.09.2012 directing the respondent No.4 to transfer the

katha immediately. Nonetheless the respondent No.4 failed

to act upon the order passed by the respondent No.3.

6

It

is

stated

that

the

property

bearing

Sy.No.39/4 was owned by M/s Master Products which

comprised of ten partners. The aforesaid land was

converted for industrial purpose on 23.12.1970. The firm

was dissolved on 01.04.1987 at which time there were four

partners. The property was divided amongst the four

partners in equal portions of 15 guntas each. In the

meanwhile, an erstwhile owner of Sy.No.39/4 filed

O.S.No.1318/1990 for partition and separate possession

which

was

decreed.

A

First

Appeal

filed

in

R.F.A.No.606/1989 was disposed off on 24.11.1989. The

vendors of the petitioner on coming to know of the

colourable partition decree filed R.P.No.645/2005 to review

the judgment and decree passed in R.F.A.No.606/1989.

The review petition was dismissed following which, the

vendors of the petitioner filed O.S.No.8973/2006 for a

declaration that the judgment and decree passed in

R.F.A.No.606/1989 was not binding on them. The

petitioner alleges that its vendors without disclosing the

proceedings pending in various courts, executed an

7

agreement of sale and thereafter conveyed the properties

to the petitioner in terms of the sale deeds referred above.

After the petitioner came to know of the proceedings

initiated in R.F.A.No.606/1989 and O.S.No.8973/2006,

filed O.S.No.6873/2009 where an order of exparte

injunction was granted and which was confirmed by this

Court in M.F.A.No.8591/2009, which was later confirmed

by the Apex Court. The petitioner claims that the suits in

O.S.Nos.8973/2006 and 6873/2009 are dismissed, against

which, R.F.A.Nos.1291/2016 and 1292/2016 are pending

consideration before this Court. The petitioner submits that

since it has lawfully purchased the property, its name had

to be entered in the katha register.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.5

contended that after the decree was passed by this Court

in R.F.A.No.606/1989, final decree proceedings were

initiated in F.D.P.No.41/1999 where a compromise was

reported, in terms of which, certain extent of land in

Sy.No.39/4