IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 12284 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NOOR MOHAMMED S/O LATE K M HABEEB AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS R/AT PETE BEEDHI, MANDYA CITY MANDYA-571401. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.32/4, NEW EXTENSION, BHOOPASANDRA RMV EXTENSION 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560094.

SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER Digitally signed by (BY SRI.R.S.RAVI, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR KIRAN KUMAR R GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH AND:

COURT OF KARNATAKA

1. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDYA CITY MANDYA-571401 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2. SRI LAKSHMAIAH S/O DEVARA GUDDANA GOOLAIAH AGED MAJOR RETIRED TEACHER NO.243, TRIVENI NILAYA

1^ST CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR MANDYA CITY, MANDYA-571401.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.M.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI.HARSHA.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO EFFECT KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.106/1B-2, MEASURING 4 GUNTAS (40 FEET X 95 FEET) SITUATED AT KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE, (NOW KNOWN AS MARIGOWDA BADAVANE), KOTHATHI-1 HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT BY CONSIDERING THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DRAFTED ON 11.09.1976 AND REGISTERED ON 23.11.1976 i.e., ANNX-C AND THE REPRESENTATION DTD: 15.11.2021 VIDE ANNX-F AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking direction to the respondent No.1 to effect Khatha in his name. However, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the claim of the petitioner for registration of Khatha in his name cannot be entertained since the Khatha is already been registered in the name of respondent No.2.

2. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the document of title upon which Khatha has been registered in the name of respondent No.2 is a forgery and therefore, the Khatha cannot be sustained. He also submits that the petitioner was stating his claim for ensuing Khatha on the basis of the registered sale deed and therefore, authorities were obliged to change the Khatha.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is claiming Khatha on the basis of the sale deed of the year 1976 and it is also not in dispute that ever since the date of the sale deed, the Khatha was never registered in the name of petitioner.

4. Since the name of the petitioner was never in the Register of City Municipal Council, Mandya right from the date of his stated purchase, the argument that his name should now be entered cannot be accepted.

5. It is open for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and establish that he is the owner of the property for which he is requesting Khatha to be registered in his name and in the event the petitioner obtains a decree from the Civil Court, it is obvious that the City Municipal Council, Mandya would have to abide by the result of the said suit.

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, writ petition is dismissed Sd/-

(N S SANJAY GOWDA)

JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69