The appellants aggrieved by the order dated

22.08.2022, passed in W.P.No.38271/2017, have filed

this writ appeal.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing ofthis writ

appeal are as under:

The site bearing No.57 formed in Sy.No.126

situated at Kundahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk,

was granted in favor of Siddaiah, S/o Chellappa vide

grant certificate dated 05.11.1980, subject to certain

4

terms and conditions. During his lifetime he has sold

the said land in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein

under registered sale deed dated 29.12.2003. On the

strength

of

registered

sale

deed,

khatha

was

registered in the names of respondents No.1 and 2 in

respect of subject site as specified under Section 114

of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

The appellants being the legal representatives of the

original grantee filed petition under Section 114(A) of

the Act for setting aside the khatha registered in the

name of respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.4

allowed the review petition filed by the appellants vide

order dated 07.07.2017. The respondents No.1 and 2

aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent

No.4 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.38271/2017. The

learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set

aside the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the

respondent No.4. Hence this writ appeal.

5

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

and learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits

that the execution of registered sale deed in favour of

respondents No.1 and 2 is in violation of the

conditions mentioned in the grant certificate. He also

submits that after the demise of the original grantee,

made an application for change of khatha by forging

the LTM of the original grantee. He further submits

that the appellants were not given an opportunity

before

khatha

was

changed

in

the

name

of

respondents No.1 and 2. Hence on these grounds, he

prays to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents

No.1 and 2 submits that the father of the appellants

executed a registered sale deed in favour of

respondents No.1 and 2 on 29.12.2003. On the

strength of the registered sale deed, khatha was

changed in the name of respondents No.1 and 2

6

under Section 114 of the Act. He submits that the

respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to decide the

right of the parties. It is wisdom of the civil court to

decide the rights of the parties. He further submits

that respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit against the

appellants which is pending for consideration. Hence

on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the subject site was

granted in favour of Siddaiah. During his lifetime, he

had executed a registered sale deed in favour of

respondents No.1 and 2 on 29.12.2003. Pursuant to

the said registered sale deed, khatha was entered in

the name of respondents No.1 and 2 on 19.04.2012 in

the records of BBMP. The appellants filed review

petition under Section 114(A) of the Act. In order to

consider the case in hand, it is necessary to examine

Section 114(A) of the Act, which reads as under:

7

<114-A:

Review

by

the

Commissioner: Where the Commissioner,

either suo motu or otherwise, after such

enquiry as he considers necessary is

satisfied that any transfer of title under

Section 114 was got recorded in the

Corporation

register

by

fraud,

misrepresentation, or suppression of facts

or by furnishing false, incorrect or complete

material, he may within a period of three

years from the date of such recording of

transfer of title reopen the case and pass

such order with respect thereto as he

thinks fit:

Provided that no such order shall be

made except after giving the person likely

to

be

affected

thereby

a

reasonable

opportunity of being heard.=

8. From the perusal of Section 114(A), review

petition can be entertained only if registration of