WA/1022/2024 of SRI K V KUPPA RAJU Vs MRS GEETA SANJAY VHATKAR on 21 July 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF) This intra-Court appeal is by respondent No.10 in W.P.No.1012/2023, assailing the order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Writ Court.

HC-KAR

2. By means of the impugned order, the Writ Court, allowed the Writ Petition in part, quashing the order at Annexure-Y dated 12.10.2022, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru and remanded the matter to the competent authority who is required to consider the appeal for registration of Katha under the provisions of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 20201, after issuing notice to all the Kathedars whose names have already been recorded in the records of the BBMP, as well as owners of the petition schedule property, so also the respondent No.10 (impleading applicant) and hear them before considering the claim of the petitioner for registration of Katha in her name.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.

4. Facts germane to file the present appeal are as under:

1 ‘the BBMP Act, 2020’, for short

HC-KAR

The petitioner claiming right on the basis of registered Gift Deed dated 09.12.2016, filed an application seeking to enter her name in the katha in respect of the property gifted in her name, with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike2. The said request was rejected by an order dated 12.10.2022 by the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, Bengaluru.

5. The Writ Court, after considering the rival submissions made by the parties, formed an opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained, as it is beyond the powers of the Joint Commissioner to consider the validity of registered Gift Deed and pass comments on the Judgment and Decree of the Sale Deed executed by the Civil Court. However, noticing the findings in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, which is impugned in the Writ Petition that, the kathas have already been registered in favor of individual site owners and many of 2 ‘the BBMP’, for short

HC-KAR

them have put up construction over residential sites, which have been purchased by them, formed an opinion that the matter required to be reconsidered by the competent authority having regard to the amendment brought to the statute namely the BBMP Act, 2020, in place of earlier statute governing the laws of municipal corporation under the name Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, partly allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter to the concerned competent authority to consider the appeal for registration of katha under the provisions of the BBMP Act, after issuing notice to all the Kathedars who are on record as well as the owners of the petition schedule property including the impleading applicant i.e., the appellant herein, and to hear them before passing any order on the claim of the petitioner for registration of katha. It is this order, is called in question in this Writ Appeal.

6. Heard, Sri.K.K.Vasanth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned

HC-KAR

Senior counsel assisted by Sri.Anandarama.K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.S.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri.V.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 10.

7. It is submitted at the Bar that, though notices have been issued, the appellant has not appeared before the concerned authority to stake his claim.

8. We have perused the entire appeal papers. The Writ Court after noticing several suits between the erstwhile owners and the right of the petitioner seeking katha, so also to protect the right of subsequent site owners, remanded the matter, after setting aside the order impugned dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru, to the competent authority who is required to consider the appeal for registration of katha under the provisions of the BBMP Act, after issuing notice to all Kathedars whose

HC-KAR

name have already been entered into the records as well as the owners of the petition schedule property including the impleading applicant/ appellant herein and hear them before passing any order on the claim of the petitioner. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Writ Court. However, since a submission has been made that, despite issuance of notices, the appellant herein has not appeared before the competent authority, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant should be given an opportunity to file his objections within 15 days from today, taking all contentions available in law. If the objections are filed within 15 days, the concerned competent authority to consider the objection and hear the appellant along with others who are issued with notice and after hearing them, pass orders on the claim of the petitioner, in terms of the order passed by the Writ Court.

9. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.

HC-KAR

10. In view of disposal of Writ Appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17