Karnataka High Court
Mr. Aslam Zackria Sait vs The Assistant Revenue Officer on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45003
WP No. 33354 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 33354 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
MR. ASLAM ZACKRIA SAIT
S/O LATE MR. HASIM SAIT
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 6/4, 3RD FLOOR, MARTELLO
BOULEVARD, M.G.ROAD,
MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED)
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUMAN K S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
SHANTHALANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBMP PRESENTLY
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF GBA, BENGALURU CENTRAL 12TH
Digitally FLOOR,
signed by
SUMA PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING
Location: M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
BBMP EAST ZONE
PRESENTLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OFF GBA, BENGALURU
CENTRAL PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. THE BBMP COMMISSIONER
PRESENTLY WITH THE LIMITS OFF GBA,
BENGALURU CENTRAL HUDSON CIRCLE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45003
WP No. 33354 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE R1 TO
CONSIDER THE ONLINE DIGITAL E-KHATHA TRANSFER APPLICATION
DATED 1ST SEPTEMBER 2025 (ANNX-A) FILED BY THE PETITIONER
AND ISSUE THE E-KHATHA CERTIFICATE STANDING IN THE NAME
OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY
WITHIN A TIME FRAME TO BE FIXED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT
OR WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL ORDER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
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
mandamus to consider his online digital khatha transfer
application dated 01.09.2025 and issue the e-khatha certificate
in his name with respect to schedule property.
2. (i) The petitioner contends that one Mr.Phylee Minoo
Maneckjee was the owner of a property bearing Municipal No.9
measuring 4,439 square feet, situated at Museum Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001. He executed a sale deed dated
15.10.2004 in favour of the petitioner conveying 1,815 square
feet out of 4,439 square feet. He thereafter executed a Will
dated 23.12.2022, bequeathing the remaining portion of the
NC: 2025:KHC:45003
HC-KAR
aforesaid property. The name of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee
appeared in the property register maintained by the respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3. The said Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee died on
06.07.2023.
(ii) It appears that petitioner had in the meanwhile
obtained a probate of the Will executed by Mr.Phylee Minoo
Maneckjee in P & SC No.119/2024. He then approached the
respondent No.1 by an application dated 02.05.2025 for
issuance of e-khatha. However, the respondent No.1 issued an
endorsement dated 03.05.2025 directing the petitioner to
produce the death certificate of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee and
his sister and a family tree of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee duly
attested by the Tahsildar.
(iii) Later, the petitioner submitted a representation on
13.05.2025 to transfer the khatha and issue the e-khatha in
the name of the petitioner. On 03.06.2025, the respondent
No.1 issued an endorsement directing the petitioner to obtain
and produce a registered relinquishment deed from the sister of
Late.Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee. The petitioner then filed an
application online for issuance of digital e-khatha on
NC: 2025:KHC:45003
HC-KAR
01.09.2025. Since the same is not considered, the petitioner is
before the Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the petitioner is a beneficiary of a will executed by one
Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee, who was the registered khatedar of
the property and therefore, the respondents could not have dug
into the issue further by calling upon the petitioner to produce
the relinquishment deed from the sister of Mr.Phylee Minoo
Maneckjee. He contends that the Will executed by Mr.Phylee
Minoo Maneckjee is probated and therefore, the lawful
execution of the Will is proved and no one has challenged the
probate granted. He therefore contends that the respondents
cannot sit over the judgment and decree of the District Court
granting probate and they are bound to enter the name of the
petitioner in the property register and issue the e-khatha.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 submits that under the Will executed in favour of the
petitioner, the sister of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee was
reserved the right of residence until her death. He therefore
NC: 2025:KHC:45003
HC-KAR
contends that the respondents were justified in calling upon the
petitioner to obtain a relinquishment deed.
5. It is relevant to note that the khatha of the property
in question stood in the name of Mr.Phylee Minoo Maneckjee
and he purportedly executed a Will in favour of the petitioner,
which was probated by the Court. Therefore, the respondents
cannot go behind the probate granted by the Court. The
probate granted by the Court shows that the sister of Mr.Phylee
Minoo Maneckjee had filed an affidavit admitting the lawful
execution of the Will. If that be so, the respondents cannot go
behind the probate granted by the Court and they are bound to
take steps to enter the name of the petitioner in the property
register and issue the e-khatha by considering his application.
6. In that view of the matter, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The respondent No.1 is directed to enter the
name of the petitioner in the property register
and issue the e-khatha showing the name of the
NC: 2025:KHC:45003
HC-KAR
petitioner in respect of the bearing Municipal
No.9, Museum Road, Bangalore - 560 001, within
a period two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
