IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NOS.51753/2016 & 57129-57131/2016 (LB BMP) BETWEEN 1. MR. ABDUL SHUKOOR @ BABAJAN S/O MOHAMMED JAFFAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. MR. MOHAMMED RIYAZ S/O MOHAMMED JAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. MR. MOHAMMED RASHEED S/O MOHAMMED JAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 4. MR. MOHAMMED SHABBER S/O MOHAMMED JAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.39/1, BAZAAR STREET, NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE-560047.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAHAMATHULLA SHARIFF, ADV.) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (SHANTHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION,) 12TH FLOOR, PU BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. MR. ABDUL RAHMAN S/O LATE MOHAMMED HANIF AGED MAJOR 4. MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM W/O ABDUL RAHMAN AGED - MAJOR R3 AND R4 ARE R/AT: NO.243/1, BAZAAR STREET, NEELASANDRA BANGALORE-560 047.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2, SMT. BHARATI PATIL, ADV. FOR SRI M.G.S KAMAL, ADV. FOR R3 & R4.) THESE WRIT PETITION ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD:16.12.2015 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE R-1 & 2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 114A OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT 1976 AND RULES THEREUNDER ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Palike and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The petitioners are before this court praying for grant of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition and for a further mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 09.04.2015 produced and marked as Annexure-G to the writ petition.
3. The said writ petition is premised on the fact that the late father of the petitioners one Mohammed Jaffar @ Babu Sab was the absolute owner of the property bearing No.38/8, Bazar Street, Neelasandra, Bangalore- 560 047, PID No.69-1-38/8, Old Ward No.68, New No.16.
That the property was purchased by the late father of the petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1971. That after the sale, the Corporation had raised demand notices on the late father of the petitioners for payment of tax dues etc. That the said demands originated between 1972-1977 and 1984-1985, 1985-1986. That the late father of the petitioners had not alienated the site and even the encumbrance does not evidence any transaction conveying title in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
4. This court after hearing petitioners was pleased to direct the second respondent to file an affidavit. The second respondent in compliance with the order of this court has filed into court an affidavit dated 19.03.2018. To state the least, the affidavit filed does not disclose any fact which led to the Palike changing the entry in the Khata register in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
5. Sri. Gurumurthy, Assistant Revenue Officer is present before this court and has produced a file. On perusal of the file, it is seen that notices have been issued by the Palike both to the petitioners and respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 along with communication dated 23.12.2015 has enclosed therewith a copy of the sale deed of 1971 whereby, title came to be vested in the late father of the petitioners and thereafter the sale deed dated 18.09.1974 executed by the late father of the petitioners in favour of one Mohammed Hanif S/o late Abdul Rahman. Thereafter, a rectification deed also has been executed correcting the property number as 38/8, in the light of the documents produced, the BBMP has issued the impugned endorsement intimating the petitioners to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of title.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no opportunity has been granted. The said statement has to be taken with a pinch of salt, as the copy of the notices available in the file speaks otherwise. That apart, even assuming that a notice is not issued to the petitioners and enquiry is directed, it would be a mere empty formality and a futile exercise as prima-facie the Palike authorities have placed reliance on the sale deed placed before them for effecting the change in the Khata register. If that be so, then it is settled law that the revenue authorities are not vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the questions of title and such issues are required to be adjudicated by the competent civil court only. Learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the ruling of this court in ILR 2009 KAR. 458 in the case of Jayamma vs The Assistant Revenue Officer and Others to contend that the khata is not a document of title. The said issue is no more res-integra and there can be no quarrel with the proposition that has been laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court. Having adverted to the facts and the observations in the ruling, this court is of the opinion that the said ruling is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The other ground that is canvassed by the petitioners is that the Palike authorities ought to have refused registration of Khata in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in view of the long delay in approaching the authorities seeking for the same. He would invite the attention of the court to provision of Section 114 of The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) to contend that the declaration by the seller and the purchaser have to be made to the authorities prior to initiating proceedings to carry out changes in the revenue records. The said contention is misplaced in the light of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 114 of the Act which reads as under:-
“114 (3). Whenever such transfer comes to the knowledge of the Commissioner or authorised officer through such notice the name of the transferee shall be entered in the property tax register.”
The registering authorities are required to intimate the revenue authorities of any such transaction resulting in conveyance of rights in immovable properties. In that view of the matter, the instant petitions in the considered opinion of this court is misconceived and endorsement issued by the second respondent – Palike is justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case and is sustainable.
Hence, petitions stand dismissed.
In view of disposal of the above writ petitions, I.A. No.1/2018 for disposal does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed off.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE