Smt. B. Thimmakka vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 11845 Kant

                             1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                        PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A. NO.71 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

1.    SMT. THIMMAKKA
      W/O LATE H. GANGAPPA
      AGED 78 YEARS.

2.    SRI. G. NAGARAJ
      S/O LATE H. GANGAPPA
      AGED 57 YEARS.

3.    SRI. G. RAMACHANDRA
      S/O LATE H. GANGAPPA
      AGED 55 YEARS.
      REP. BY P1 & P2 BY GPA HOLDER.

      ALL ARE RESIDING AT OLD NO.111
      NEW NO.8, JUGANHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR
      II BLOCK, BANGALORE-560010.
                                          ... APPELLANTS

(BY MR. S.V. BHAT, ADV.,)
                             2



AND:

1.     THE COMMISSIONER
       BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
       BANGALORE - 560 079.

2.     THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
       GOVINDARAJANAGAR DIVISION
       BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
       BANGALORE-560079.

3.     SRI. D.K. KEMPAIAH
       AGED 60 YEARS
       R/AT NO.158, 6TH MAIN
       HVR LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD
       BANGALORE-560079.

4.     SRI. MAHESH KUMAR PANSARI
       S/O SEETHARAM PANSARI
       AGED 50 YEARS
       R/AT NO.17, K.R. SHETTY PET
       JUMMA MASJID ROAD
       BANGALORE-560002.

5.     SMT. PRAJWALA
       AGED 65 YEARS
       R/AT NO.66, 5TH MAIN ROAD
       HVR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560079.

6.     SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR
       S/O R. MALLIKARJUN
       AGED 50 YEARS
       R/AT NO.77, 6TH MAIN
       HVR LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD
       BANGALORE-560079.

                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. B.V. MURALIDHAR, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
    MR. NAGAIAH, ADV., FOR R3
    MR. B.L. NANDA KUMAR, ADV., FOR R4
                             3



   MR. K. SUBRAMANYAM, ADV., FOR R5
V/O DTD:28.03.2022 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)

                         ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER IN WP 19633/2013 & 19641-642/2013 DATED
6/6/2013 & THE ORDER IN REVIEW PETITION 366/2013 &
384-385/2013 & DATED 5/12/2016 & ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION & QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/3/2013 & ISSUED THE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION.
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COSTS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS THROUGHOUT.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY,    ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE     DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal arises out of an order

dated 06.06.2013 by which writ petition preferred by

the appellant has been disposed of.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the appellants are owners of

land measuring 3 acres and 16 1/2 guntas in

Sy.No.55/1A2 situated in Saneguruvanahalli,

Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The

petitioners claim that they have acquired title in

respect of the aforesaid land through compromise

decree dated 12.09.2007 in RFA No.1227/2002.

However, an endorsement dated 16.03.2013 issued by

BBMP by which the petitioner was informed by BBMP

that Khatha cannot be made in their favour. The

appellants challenged the endorsement in a writ

petition before the learned Single Judge, which has

been dismissed reserving liberty to the appellants to

make a fresh application in respect of the undisputed

portion of Sy.No.66/1A2 and the BBMP has been

directed to consider the same in accordance with law.

In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has

been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that in the compromise decree, the

petitioner is entitled to mutation of his name in

respect of land bearing 3 acres and 16 1/2 guntas. It

is further submitted that the learned Single Judge

ought to have appreciated that the respondent No.3 to

6 are claiming title through the defendant in RFA

No.1227/2002 and therefore, the aforesaid decree

binds respondents No.3 to 6 as well.

4. Be that as it may, in the facts of the case,

liberty is reserved to the appellant to make an

application seeking change of khatha in their favour

in the light of the judgment and decree dated

12.09.2007 passed in RFA No.1227/2002. Needless to

state that in case, such an application is filed, the

BBMP shall consider the same and decide the same in

accordance with law and it is also further needless to

state that respondents No.3 to 6 shall also be afforded

an opportunity of hearing before an order on the

application which is filed by the appellants is passed.

To the aforesaid extent, the order dated 06.06.2013 is

modified and accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. It

is made clear that this court has not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the controversy.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE SS