IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.27776/2019 (LB BMP) BETWEEN:
SMT. R.VEENA, W/O SRI D.RAJU (LATE), AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.713, 3RD BLOCK, VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560056 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI KO VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER, B.B.M.P, BENGALURU-560001.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST), B.B.M.P, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU-560001.
3. ASST. REVENUE OFFICER, B.B.M.P, WARD NO-32, K.G.RANGE, BENGALURU-560032.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R1-R3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS PER ANNX-D BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 12.03.2019 issued by respondent No.3, whereby in response to the application submitted by the petitioner to transfer the khatha in her name, respondent No.3 has issued the endorsement in the following manner:
“ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ SÁ° eÁUÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛUÉ compound ¤«Äð¹ £ÁªÀÄ¥sÀ®PÀªÀ£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹, £ÀAvÀgÀ ©” ªÀ» ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ PÉÆÃgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.”
3. The case of the petitioner is, that she has purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1994. That subsequently, she has been paying taxes and the property has also been assigned PID No.38/738/B. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the value of the property has significantly multiplied and is worth in crores of rupees and that certain third parties are trying to knock away the property and it is at their instance and influence, the order of such nature is being passed.
4. There appears an element of truth. The order is not only whimsical, but also highly arbitrary. Prima facie, there does not appear to be any statutory provision which empowers or enables respondent No,.3 to issue the endorsement in the manner he has done. It is but natural that property owners can safeguard the property by putting up compound wall. It is not known as to how the absence of the compound wall is in any manner intervening in the passing of the orders or transferring the khatha in favour of the petitioner. Such whimsical attitude on the part of the officers does not bode well. Hence, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that respondent No.3 has transgressed his jurisdiction in calling upon the petitioner to put up the compound wall and the name board and that only thereafter she could apply for khatha. It is therefore apparent that the same is mischievous and appears to be motivated. In that view of the matter, petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.
5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-D is quashed. Respondent No.3 shall forthwith consider and dispose off the application of the petitioner seeking transfer of khatha.
6. The nature of the endorsement does not inspire confidence in the Court, more so in the background of the allegations set out in the writ petition. Hence, a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to conduct an inquiry into the passing of the order. Respondent No.1-Commissioner shall secure the explanation as to what are the circumstances that led to respondent No.3 issuing the endorsement of such nature and shall submit a report to this Court within four weeks from today i.e., on or before 21.08.2019. The copy of this order be forwarded to the Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents is permitted to file power in four weeks time.
Order as to imposing costs would be considered after receipt of the report.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR