A writ petition is premature if it challenges an administrative endorsement that only indicates an application will be considered according to law, without having reached a final decision on the merits of the request.

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SA.KAM.A (G.A.DE) WA 132/PR/35/2025-26 DATED 20.03.2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

There is a dispute in respect of a property between petitioner and respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 filed W.P.No.16328/2023 for grant of khata in respect of the property in his name. This Court has disposed of the W.P.No.16328/2023 by passing the following order.

"i) The petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh application along with all the necessary particulars for issuance of khata;

ii) Upon receipt of such an application, the jurisdictional officer of BBMP shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter;

iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."

2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, respondent nos.1 and 2 have initiated action to consider the representation of respondent no.3 regarding grant of khata. The petitioner has objected to the same contending that he is the owner of the property concerned. It is noticed that petitioner has filed O.S.No.1832/2025 against respondent no.3 in respect of the property, and has failed to obtain an interim order in his favour so far. Hence, respondent no.2 has issued an endorsement to the petitioner stating that if the petitioner does not obtain any interim orders against the order passed in W.P.No.16328/2023, in that event respondent no.2 will consider the request of respondent no.3 and will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after obtaining necessary opinion from its law department. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, he is entitled to khata of the property and not respondent no.3 and it is submitted that respondent no.2 intends to issue khata in favour of respondent no.3 without considering the rights of the petitioner.

4. Perusal of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J to the writ petition, shows that the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. By virtue of the impugned endorsement dated 20.03.2026, respondent no.2 has not stated that khata will be necessarily issued in favour of respondent no.3. But has stated that application of respondent no.3 would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed. The relevant portion of the impugned endorsement reads as under:

"DzÀÝjAzÀ WÀ£À GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå:16328/2023gÀ DzÉñÀ/¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:30-8-2025gÀAvÉ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ¥ÀvÀæ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 7 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV WÀ£À GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå:16328/2023UÉ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕ EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w ºÁUÀÆ zÁR:ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸À®Ä F ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ ¸ÀÆa¸À:ÁVzÉ. vÀ¦àzÀ°è WÀ£À GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÉÆñÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀAvÉ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À:ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ºÁUÀÆ G:ÉèÃR(1)gÀ CfðAiÀÄ §UÉÎ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ E-D¹Û D£ï:ÉÊ£ï ¥ÉÆÃlð:ï£À°è ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ, E.¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©rJ¤AzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆâvÀ £ÀPÉë ¥Àæw EvÁå¢ zÁR:ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À:ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ F ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ w½¸À:ÁVzÉ."

5. Learned counsel appearing for GBA also submits that based on the documents made available to respondent no.2 by respondent no.3 and the petitioner, a decision would be taken whether to issue khata in