Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2947
2025 KHC 43252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R. NATARAJ, J.
Habitat Splendour Owners Association – Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Commissioner – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 518 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Sri. Dhananjay V. Joshi, Senior Counsel Along With Sri. H.U. Vachan, Advocate
For the Respondent : Sri. G.S. Kannur, Senior Counsel Along With Smt. Sumangala Gachchinamath, Advocate, Sri. B.V. Raman, Advocate, Sri. K.N. Phanindra, Senior Counsel Along With Smt.kruthika raghavan, Smt. Sameeksha Patil, Advocate, Sri. B. Bopanna, Additional Government Advocate, Sri. Rajesh Mahale, Senior Counsel Along With Smt. Sukanya H.D., Advocate
Proceedings initiated under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act by a party without locus standi and beyond three years are not maintainable and can be quashed, preserving the authority's right to act if construction violates any laws.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - Section 114-A - Petition challenging proceedings initiated for cancellation of khata of apartment complex - Respondent No.3 lacked locus standi - Complaint initiated beyond three years was not maintainable - Proceedings quashed but BBMP may take necessary action if construction is found illegal. (Paras 19, 20)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Principles - Writ jurisdiction can intervene if an administrative action is beyond the authority provided by law or done without due process. (Paras 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Owners Association of a residential complex, challenged an order issued by the Joint Commissioner to cancel the khata issued for their flats, alleging the proceedings were initiated by a party lacking interest and were beyond the permitted timeframe under the Act. The petitioner also contested that proper approvals were obtained for construction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the proceeding under Section 114-A of the Act was initiated improperly by a complainant without locus standi and beyond the prescribed three-year period, leading to a quashing of the proceedings while preserving the BBMP's rights to act if statutory compliance is not met.
Issues: The key issues included whether the proceedings initiated under Section 114-A were maintainable given the complainant's lack of interest and the applicability of the three-year rule for initiating such complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that actions initiated by parties lacking any legal standing or interest in the matter are impermissible, especially when they go beyond established statutory timeframes, thus underscoring the necessity for adherence to procedural mandates in administrative actions.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges authority's order under the act (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. impleadment issues and objections raised (Para 3 , 4 , 11) |
| 3. arguments against the maintainability of the complaint (Para 7 , 14) |
| 4. respondents' defense regarding irregularities and legal actions (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 18) |
| 5. court finds proceedings unmaintainable and settles legal standing (Para 19) |
| 6. court orders quashing of proceedings while allowing future actions (Para 20) |
ORDER :
R. NATARAJ, J.
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal No.
under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act, 1976'). It has also sought for a direction to the respondent No.1 to hear and adjudicate upon the maintainability of the Appeal No.6/2017-18 filed by the respondent No.3 and in the event respondent No.1 were to hold that appeal is maintainable, to direct the respondent No.1 to stay all further proceedings therein for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to approach this Court.
2. The petitioner claims that it is an Association registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 of members, who own flats in a residential complex known as "Habitat Splendour" developed on the converted land bearing Mahadevapura City Municipal khata No.108 measuring 3,53,925 Sq. ft. i.e. total 08 Acres 05 Guntas formed in 05 Acres 06 guntas of land in Sy. No.16 and 02 Acres 39 Guntas of land in Sy. No.45 situate at Chinnapanahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk (henceforth referred to as 'the petition schedule property' / 'subject property'). The apartments were purportedly constructed in the petition schedule property in accordance with a modified sanctioned plan bearing L.P No.419/2003-04. The construction of the apartments was completed during 2004-05 and the property was assessed to tax and individual khatas were issued to each of the flats constructed in the apartment complex. The petitioner contends that when things stood thus, the respondent No.3 submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 which was treated as information for the purposes of initiating proceedings under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 for cancellation of the khata issued to the flats constructed on the petition schedule property. The petitioner claims that the objections were filed to the representation filed by the respondent No.3 and a preliminary objection was raised regarding the power of the respondent No.1 to entertain the representation of the respondent No.3 beyond three years from the date the khatas were issued. The Developer / Builder of the apartments also submitted its objections questioning the representation on various grounds including the restriction against entertaining such review petitions beyond three years.
3. One Mr. Senthil and one Mr. Shareef Ussenni filed two applications to implead themselves in the proceedings before the respondent No.1.
4. The petitioner opposed those applications contending inter alia that the proceedings under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 were not akin to the proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') and the respondent No.1 was not a Civil Court and therefore, the respondent No.1 without adjudicating upon the maintainability of the proceedings, cannot consider the applications filed for impleadment.
5. The respondent No.1, passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 issuing notices to the former land owners of the petition schedule property and instructed the concerned officers to conduct a spot inspection on 20.01.2017.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.1 was bound to consider the threshold objection raised by the petitioner that the respondent No.3 was not a person interested in the development of flats on the subject property. Therefore, he contended that
