In this petition, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned

endorsement at Annexure – J dated 30.08.2019 issued by

respondent No.1 – The Town Panchayath, whereby the application

filed by the petitioners for issuance of Khatha Certificate in Form

No.3 was rejected by the respondent No.1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

The material on record discloses that pursuant to

purchasing the site vide registered Sale Deed dated 01.08.1980,

the petitioners filed an application seeking issuance of the Khatha

Certificate in Form No.3. The said application was rejected by

respondent No.1 by issuing the impugned endorsement on the

ground that respondent No.2 / police authority have raised

- 3 -

objection with regard to issuance of the khatha. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present

petition.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance

upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. M.S.

Rajeshwari and others Vs. The Joint Commissioner and

another – W.P.No.8494/2016 (D.D.02.09.2022).

5.

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.2 and

learned counsel for respondent No.1 submit that there is no merit in

the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

In Rajeshwari’s case supra, this Court held as under:

“The petitioners claim that they have acquired

right, title and interest over the schedule property by virtue

of a registered gift deed dated 9.6.2010. In pursuance of

the gift deed dated 9.6.2010, the petitioners submitted an

application with the respondents - BBMP to register the

katha in their favour in respect of the schedule property as

specified under Section 114(3) of Karnataka Municipal

Corporations Act, 1976 (for short ‘Act'). The said

application came to be rejected stating that the objection

has been submitted by Sri M R Sathyanarayana and

only after settling the dispute with the said person, the

application for registering the katha in their favour may be

- 4 -

submitted. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition

is filed.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3.

The petitioners claim to have acquired right,

title and interest over the schedule property by virtue of the

registered gift deed. Section 114(3) of the Act specifies that

whenever such transfer comes to the knowledge of the

Commissioner or authorized officer through such notice,

the name of the transferee shall be entered in the

property tax register. In the present case, in the absence

of any order of restraint passed by the jurisdictional Civil

Court, the respondent - BBMP was under an obligation to

register the katha in favour of the petitioners as specified

under sub-section 3 of Section 114 of the Act. Hence, the

impugned endorsement issued by the respondents-BBMP

rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners is

contrary to Section 114(3) of the Act. Accordingly, I pass

the following:

ORDER

i)

Writ petition is allowed.

ii)

The

impugned

endorsement

dated

13.10.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent vide

Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

iii)

The 2nd respondent is hereby directed

to reconsider the applications dated 4.7.2015 and

8.9.2015 submitted to register the katha in favour of

the petitioners in respect of the schedule property as

specified under Section 114(3) of the Act or 149 of

the BBMP Act. The said exercise shall be concluded

- 5 -

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt

of certified copy of this order.”

7.

As held by this Court in the aforesaid decision,

application filed by a person seeking registration of khatha

pursuant to the registration of Sale Deed cannot be rejected merely

on the ground that some other persons have file objections to the

same.

8.

In this context, it is relevant to a perusal of Section 111

to 113 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 will clearly indicate

that upon request being made by a holder of the registered Sale

Deed to transfer t