1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO.52498 OF 2019 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

M/S.MRB DEVELOPERS

A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM

NO.196, 6^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN

6^TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE

BENGALURU 3 560 085

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

SHRI R.BALAKRISHNA, AGED 52 YEARS

SON OF SHRI.RAJA GOPAL NAIDU

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.B.M.ARUN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

HUDSON CIRCLE

BENGALURU 3 560 002

2.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA WARD

RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR

BENGALURU 3 560 098

2

3.

SHRI.D.S.SHASHIDHARA

@ B.S.SHASHIDHARA

S/O LATE G.SIDDE GOWDA

AGED 54 YEARS

RESIDENT OF SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE

MALL POST, MANDYA DISTRICT 3 571404.

&..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.V.MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2;

SRI.B.H.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE

ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R.2 AND QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.09.2019 PASSED BY THE R.2 VIDE

ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTIALLY AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking writ of

certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by respondent

No.2 as per Annexure-A and consequently, direct respondent

Nos.1 and 2 to continue the katha of schedule property in the

name of petitioner.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under;

3

The petitioner is a firm constituted under a Partnership

Deed dated 26.06.2013 and carrying on the business of civil

construction,

developing

lands

and

selling

commercial/residential sites/flats. The petitioner purchased a

portion of the land bearing Sy No.5/1, corresponding new Sy.

No.5/3 under registered sale deed dated 27.04.2005. The

petitioner claims that respondent No.3 had executed a General

Power of Attorney in favour of his close relative namely

Smt.Girija V.Raj on 28.08.2006. The petitioner claims that

respondent No.3 through GPA Holder sold the property in

favour of one Sri Mirle Varadaraj under registered sale deed

dated 25.03.2008. The said Mirle Varadaraj got phody and

sub-divided the land by placing reliance on the sale deed

executed by respondent No.3 GPA Holder. After the sub-

division, properties were purchased by the petitioner9s

vendor9s husband and assigned new Sy.No.5/3. Thereafter,

petitioner9s vendors sought for conversion of the agricultural

land and after securing conversion order from the competent

4

authority, formed sites in the aforesaid land. Petitioner also

claims that vendor9s husband gifted site Nos.1 to 8 totally

measuring 28,398.45 Sq. Ft. in favour of his wife Smt.Girija V

Raj under Gift Deed dated 18.02.2013.

3. The petitioner9s vendor having acquired valid right

and title under registered Gift Deed submitted a varadi and

thereafter, it appears that the Corporation has assigned katha

No.2583/1/5/3/1 and the property, which was retained by

petitioner9s

vendor9s

husband,

was

assigned

katha

No.2583/5/3.

[

4. The petitioner has further claimed that his vendor

namely Smt.Girija V. Raj sold the property which was gifted in

her favour to the present petitioner herein under registered

sale

deed

08.08.2013.

Consequently,

katha

was

also

transferred in the name of the petitioner9s firm in the records

of BBMP and the petitioner9s firm is paying taxes to the

Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner firm secured a Sanction

5

plan and license from BBMP and constructed a residential

apartment complex consisting of 70 flats with all amenities.

5. The petitioner has contended that respondent No.3

filed a suit seeking relief of declaration questioning the Gift

Deed as well as the sale deed in favour of petitioner