Karnataka High Court

Sharmada B K vs The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 23 November, 2023

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2023:KHC:42246
                                                            WP No. 14352 of 2023




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                             BEFORE
                                                                                   R
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 14352 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SHARMADA B K
                   DAUGHTER OF C V KUMAR,
                   AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
                   R/AT NO. 13/6, 6TH CROSS,
                   ASHOKA NAGAR,
                   BANASHANKARI FIRST STAGE,
                   BANGALORE 560050

                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. JAYAKUMAR N D.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
                         N R SQUARE, CORPORATION BUILDING
                         BANGALORE 560001,
Digitally signed         REPRESENTED BY ITS
by                       CHIEF COMMISSIONER
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH     2.    THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
COURT OF                 BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
KARNATAKA
                         PADMANABHA NAGARA,
                         SUB DIVISION OFFICE
                         BANGALORE 560085

                   3.    D.N. RAMANANDA
                         S/O D.R. NARAYANA MURTHY,
                         AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
                         R/AT 2326, 17TH CROSS,
                         24TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT,
                         BENGALURU-560 102.

                   4.    GEETHA RAMANANDA
                                   -2-
                                                  NC: 2023:KHC:42246
                                              WP No. 14352 of 2023




     W/O D.N. RAMANANDA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     R/AT NO. 2326, 17TH CROSS,
     24TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT,
     BENGALURU-560 102.

                                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA N R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
    SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI       TO   QUASH     ENDORSEMENT    BEARING   NO.
DA/182/KTR/409/22-23 DATED 28/1/2023, AT ANNEXURE-J OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash endorsement bearing No. DA/182/KTR/409/22-23 dated 28/1/2023, at Annexure-J of the 2nd respondent.

b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to bring the khata of the Schedule Property in conformity with the registered release deed dated 30/8/2021 at Annexure-E and to issue consequential endorsement to the petitioner in accordance with Section 149 of the BBMP Act.

c. Grant such other order or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner claims to be a practicing dentist who, along

with her parents on 18.01.2013, purchased site bearing

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

No.31 carved out of Sy.No.123 and 131, (old No.71),

Kathriguppe Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South

Taluk now identified as site No.31, 4th Phase, 7th Main,

Rajiv Nagar, Banashankari, 3rd Stage, Padmanabha

Nagar, Bengaluru. Prior to the said purchase, a Katha

issued by the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike

(BBMP) as regards the said property stood in the name of

the vendors of the petitioner. Post the purchase the

Katha was transferred in the name of the petitioner and

her parents.

3. In the year 2021, the parents of the petitioner released

their right, title, or interest in favour of the petitioner

under a registered release deed dated 30.08.2021.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made an application for

necessary change in the Katha inasmuch as she sought

for the deletion of the names of her parents since she was

now the exclusive owner of the property. The said

request made by the petitioner came to be rejected by

the respondent Corporation on the ground that there

were objections filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 wherein

respondent Nos.3 and 4 claimed right, title, and interest

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

over the very same property and in regard thereto, they

had produced another Katha which had been issued by

the BBMP in their favour, as also documents evidencing

that they had made payment of betterment fees, etc.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this

Court.

4. Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that:

4.1. The Katha of the site No.31 having already stood in

the name of the petitioner, her father, and mother,

what is now sought for is only the deletion of the

name of the parents of the petitioner on account of

the release deed, it is not a new Katha which has

been sought for.

4.2. The contention which had been urged on behalf of

the corporation is that the documents which had

been produced, namely the Katha and assessment

extracts at Annexures-D and C, were fabricated are

completely false.

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

4.3. He submits that along with the documents filed the

petitioner has produced the snapshot of the

property tax portal of the BBMP, which indicates

that, the PID number of the property in question

when input would reflect the name of the petitioner

and her parents. He submits that this Court could

also verify the same from the said portal.

4.4. Thus, he submits that BBMP has issued a Katha in

respect of the very same property, it stands in the

name of the petitioner and her parents. Once the

release deed has been executed, it is the duty of

the corporation to carry out necessary changes in

the Katha in terms of the release deed and not

reject it merely on the objections filed by

respondent Nos.3 and 4.

5. Sri. N.R.Jagadeeswara, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that

5.1. he has been instructed by the concerned ARO that

Annexures-B and C which had been produced along

with the petitioner, are not available on the records

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

of the Corporation. Thus, he submits that there is

no Katha in the name of the petitioner and her

parents requiring any change to be made.

5.2. Since there is an objection raised by respondent

Nos.3 and 4 as regards the application made by the

petitioner. Taking into consideration the

documents which have been produced by

respondent Nos.3 and 4, the impugned

endorsement has been issued by respondent No.1.

6. Sri. M.S.Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that

6.1. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not submitted any

objection to the application made by the petitioner.

6.2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have suomoto on the

basis of the documents which are available on the

file of the corporation have issued endorsements.

6.3. Apart from the same, he submits that respondent

Nos.3 and 4 have purchased the property on

22.04.1999, and thereafter, the Katha has been

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

as per the records of the corporation, and when

respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the Kathedars, the

application of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

7. Heard Sri. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner, Sri. N.R.Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri. M.S.Nagaraja, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused papers.

8. It is rather a strange case where the Corporation seems

to have issued Katha in respect of the same property to

two different persons, if the submission of the

Corporation is accepted. Inasmuch as it is on account of

the Katha issued in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 by

the BBMP that the application filed by the petitioner has

been rejected.

9. Though Sri. N.R.Jagadeeswara, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 on instructions of the concerned

ARO submitted that Annexures-B and C - the Katha

certificate and assessment extracts are not available on

the file of the Corporation. In terms of the submission

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

made by Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, this Court examined the same by visiting the

BBMP property tax portal, and when the PID number of

the property was input, it was the name of the petitioner

and her parents, which has been found mentioned, and

the initial application number is shown as '8000066006'.

When these details are available on the website, it was

not permissible for the ARO to have instructed Sri.

Jagadeeswara N.R., learned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 and 2 that no records are available and/or that

documents produced by the petitioner are fabricated and

false. Such a serious allegation could not have been

made by the ARO and such instructions could not have

been issued to their counsels. The Chief Commissioner is

directed to look into the matter and take appropriate

action against the said ARO for having misled his counsel

and thereafter trying to mislead this Court. Though this

Court would also initiate perjury action, it refrains from

doing so, leaving it to the Chief Commissioner to set his

house in order.

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

10. Insofar as respondent Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, Sri.

M.S.Nagaraja, learned counsel submits that PID number

of their property is 55-119-8, when the same was input in

the BBMP property tax portal with all permutations, and

combination of the first three letters of names of

respondent Nos.3 and 4 the popup window reflects that

"enter correct PID number/Owners name". Thus, it

appears that there is no entry available in the SAS

property tax system insofar as that PID number with the

name of the owners is concerned. Be that as it may, this

is for an appropriate Court to consider in appropriate

proceedings, if initiated.

11. In the present case, application that has been filed by the

petitioner is only for a change of Katha by deleting the

names of the parents of the petitioner and continuing the

name of the petitioner in furtherance of the release deed

executed in the name of the petitioner. Thus, it is not a

fresh Katha which is sought to be issued or a transfer of

khatha being required to be made, as such the objections

raised in relation thereto, that too on the basis of a Katha

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

which is claimed to have been issued in the year 1998

does not arise.

12. Furthermore, there is a contradiction in the submission

made by the counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and

respondent Nos.3 and 4 inasmuch as the Corporation

contents that objections were received from respondent

Nos.3 and 4, while the counsel for respondent Nos.3 and

4 submits that no objections were filed by respondent

Nos.3 and 4 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 have suomoto

issued the endorsement on the basis of the documents

available with the Corporation. These are matters which

would be the subject matter of the enquiry by the Chief

Commissioner, as indicated above. In such

circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the

petition is required to be allowed.

13. This is not a stray case where a Katha certificate issued

by the BBMP has been objected to on the ground that the

same is not genuine. Any allegation as regards the

particular document is not genuine and is therefore

fabricated has serious connotations in both civil and

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

criminal law. Thus, when any such allegations are made,

there ought to be a system put in place by the BBMP to

ensure the veracity of the document by any third party,

including a Court of law before which it is produced.

14. The Katha certificate issued on a piece of paper without

any verification possibility has resulted in such a

statement being made, which required this Court to visit

the BBMP portal input the PID number, application

number, first three alphabets of petitioner's name so as

to ascertain the veracity of the said Katha certificate.

15. In this day and age when systems like digi-locker have

been enabled which would give access to verification of

identity of a person by uploading Aadhar Card and other

identity documents by credentializing them and their

veracity being capable of being verified on the basis of a

QR Code which is printed thereon, which is the very

system which is used by this Court in respect of the

judgments, which are rendered by this Court, it is high

time that the Corporation also implements a system of

digitizing and credentializing all the documents which are

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

issued by the Corporation including but not limited to a

Katha certificate, plan sanction, tax paid receipt, SAS tax

paid receipt etc., so that the QR Code is also printed

which when scanned the website of the Corporation be

visited to verify the authenticity thereof.

16. These documents could also be uploaded by the owner on

to digi-locker to enable such owner to make use of the

documents when required since tax-paid receipts, Katha,

etc. are required to be produced by such owner to avail

many, many services of the state as also private

partners.

17. The Chief Commissioner, BBMP along with the Principal

Secretary, E-governance, as also the concerned of digi-

locker are directed to look into the matter and formulate

a suitable mechanism to credentialize all documents

issued by the BBMP so these situations can be avoided.

Necessary report in this regard is to be filed within a

period of four weeks from today. Registry is directed to

print the name of the learned High Court Government

Pleader in the cause list to enable reporting of

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42246

compliance. In the above circumstances, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed, a certiorari is issued,

the endorsement bearing

No.DA/182/KTR/409/22-23 dated 28.01.2023 at

Annexure-J issued by respondent No.2 is hereby

quashed.

(ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the

application of the petitioner in terms of the

registered release deed dated 13.08.2021 and

carry out necessary changes in the katha within

a period of 30 days from the date of receipt

thereof since apparently respondent Nos.3 and 4

have not filed any objections to the application

filed by the petitioner.