2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 211766
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R. NATARAJ
MRS. R BHARATHI MURALIDHAR – Appellant
Versus
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP 31361/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 31361 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MRS. R BHARATHI MURALIDHAR
D/O. LATE Y RAMAIAH W/O. M. MURALIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO. 63, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK
SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, JAKKASANDRA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
PH.NO:9845002868
EMAIL: cm.muralidhar@gmail.com
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADISH M, ADVOCATE AND SRI. BHASKAR PRASAD T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
CORPORATION OFFICE
Digitally signed
by CORPORATION CIRCLE
MARKONAH ALLI
RAMU PRIYA BENGALURU - 560 027.
Location: HIGH
PH. NO 080-22660000
COURT OF
KARNATAKA EMAIL: comm@bbmp.gov.in
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SOUTH)
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST,
JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011.
PH.NO 080-22975731
EMAIL: dcsouth.bbmp@gmail.com
3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
KORAMANGALA RANGE
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
NADA PRABHU KEMPEGOWDA BHAVAN KORAMANGALA MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI BENGALURU - 560 095.
PH.NO:080-22975846, EMAIL:NA
4. MRS. LAKSHMI SRINIVAS W/O LATE P SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO. 73/A, 17TH E MAIN ROAD KORAMANGALA
6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 095.
PH.NO: NA, EMAIL: NA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. PURNACHANDRA M. PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.DA/67/147/KTR/27/2025-26 DATED 19.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.rJ/67/147/PÉnDgï/27/2025-26 dated 19.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to transfer the khata of the petition schedule property to her name and assess the property to tax in her name.
2. The petitioner contends that her father, Sri. Y.
Ramaiah was the owner of the property bearing No.234, PID No.67-7-234, situate at 7th block, Koramangala, Bengaluru, who executed a gift deed dated 17.07.2006 bequeathing the aforesaid property to the petitioner. Consequent thereto, she filed an application on 30.08.2006 with the respondent No.3 for change of khata in her favour. The respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 09.10.2006 requiring the petitioner to appear for an enquiry before him as the respondent No.4 had also applied for transfer of khata in respect of the very same property. After hearing both the parties, the respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 17.11.2006 stating that the application for change of khata cannot be considered until final disposal of the suit in O.S. No.7952/2006. Later, on 17.11.2006, the petitioner requested the respondent No.3 to obtain an opinion from the Law Department. However, the respondent No.3 again issued an endorsement dated 16.01.2007 stating that the request of the petitioner would be considered after disposal of the suit in O.S. No.7952/2006. The petitioner then filed a review petition before the respondent No.2 under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 to set aside the said endorsement dated 16.01.2007 issued by the respondent No.3. The petitioner challenged the endorsement dated 16.04.2007 stated to be issued by the respondent No.3 herein based on the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (East), BBMP, as well as the endorsement dated 16.01.2007 issued by the respondent No.3 herein before this Court in W.P. No.10737/2007, which was allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 03.10.2007 and the endorsements impugned therein were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for fresh consideration with a direction to pa