Karnataka High Court
Smt.Parvathamma vs The Chief Commissioner on 9 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40310-DB
WA No. 657 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 657 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PARVATHAMMA
W/O SRI.ASWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2. SRI. ASWATHAPPA
S/O LATE KONDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.15/73, 3RD CROSS,
GOVINAYAKANAHALLI,
Digitally signed KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT,
by NIRMALA BENGALURU-560 078.
DEVI ...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560002
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CORPORATION OFFICE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40310-DB
WA No. 657 of 2025
HC-KAR
9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 011.
3. REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
PADMANABHA NAGAR DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, S. KARIYAPPA ROAD,
YEDIYURU COMMERCIAL MARKET COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560082.
4. ASST.REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
PADMANABHANAGAR SUB DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR BBMP BUILDING,
ANJANEYANAGARA, JANATHA
BAZAAR JUNCTION,
BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO
R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT
AND ORDER DATED 20/02/2025 MADE IN WP NO.23893/2023,
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40310-DB
WA No. 657 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
1. The present intra Court appeal is filed by the appellants (writ petitioners) calling in question an order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.23893/2023 (LB-BMP), whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the said writ petition.
2. The appellants had filed the said writ petition seeking to quash an endorsement bearing No.DAVAA/181/PR/705/2022-23, dated 26.07.2023 (Annexure-L to the writ petition) issued by the fourth respondent (Assistant Revenue Officer). The said endorsement dated 26.07.2023 was issued consequent to a request made by the first appellant to incorporate her name in the revenue records in respect of site bearing No.15/73, 3rd cross, Govinayakanahalli, Gramthana Ward No.55, Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as 'the said property'].
3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the first appellant had entered into an agreement of sale dated 10.03.1980 to purchase the said property from its owner Sri Thoti Muniyappa for a total sale consideration of `45,000/- . That the entire sale consideration was paid by the first appellant to the said Thoti Muniyappa. It is the case of the appellants that the said -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40310-DB WA No. 657 of 2025 HC-KAR Thoti Muniyappa expired about 35 to 40 years ago and his wife Smt. Mallamma also expired 16 to 18 years ago. That they are in possession of the said property since 10.03.1980 and they have constructed houses on the said property and have been residing in the same for the last 42 years, as also portions of the same have been let out to tenants. That the electricity connection has also been obtained to the said property.
4. It is the further case of the appellants that Thoti Muniyappa filed a suit in OS No.7290/1995, which was dismissed. That one Sri Nandakumar claiming to be the purchaser of the property under a registered Sale Deed dated 30.07.2003 from one H.S.Srinivasa Murthy filed a suit in OS No.7843/2003 against the appellants for declaration of title and possession of the suit property. The appellants filed a suit in OS No.9550/2014 against the said Sri Nandukumar and another for injunction to restrain them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suits were disposed of by a common judgment dated 17.10.2022, whereunder the suit in OS No.7843/2003 filed by the said Sri Nandakumar was dismissed and the suit in OS No.9550/2014 filed by the appellants was decreed. The defendants -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40310-DB WA No. 657 of 2025 HC-KAR in the said suit were restrained by way of a permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
5. Consequent to the said judgment and decree dated 17.04.2022, the appellants made an application dated 9.12.2022 before the Revenue Officer of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [hereinafter referred to as 'BBMP'] to change the khatha of the said property in the name of the appellants and to show the name of the appellants as the khatha holders of the said property. The said request was rejected by the fourth respondent (Assistant Revenue Officer) vide endorsement dated 26.07.2023. Questioning the same, the appellants preferred Writ Petition No.23893/2023, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 20.02.2025 on the ground that there was no document of title in favour of the appellants.
6. It is the case of the appellants in the present appeal that, having regard to Section 153 of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'], the khatha in respect of the said property is required to be issued in the name of the appellants to enable the BBMP to collect -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40310-DB WA No. 657 of 2025 HC-KAR tax in respect of the said property from the appellants. It is the further case of the appellants that since the suit of the appellants being OS No. 9550/2004 having been decreed and the suit being OS No.7843/2003 having been dismissed by a common judgment dated 17.10.2022, the request made by the appellants to incorporate their name as the khatha holders of the said property, ought to have been granted.
7. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, admittedly, there is no document of title that is executed in favour of the appellants. Admittedly, the first appellant has entered into an agreement of sale dated 10.03.1980 and agreed to purchase the said property. Apart from the said agreement of sale dated 10.03.1980, there is no other document with regard to the said property, which is standing in the name of the appellants. Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in not interfering with the endorsement dated 26.07.2023.
8. The reliance placed by the appellants on Section 153 of the Act also will not aid the case of the appellants. Section 153 of the Act reads as under:
"153. Property tax from whom and when payable.--7-
NC: 2025:KHC:40310-DB WA No. 657 of 2025 HC-KAR (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the property tax shall be primarily payable as follows, namely:-
(a) if the premises are held immediately from the Government or the corporation, from the actual occupier thereof:
Provided that the property tax due in respect of premises owned by the Government and occupied by any person on payment of rent, shall be payable by the Government:
Provided further that no property tax shall be payable in respect of premises owned by the Corporation and occupied by any person on payment of rent.
(b) if the premises are not so held,-
(i) from the lessor if the premises are let;
(ii) from the superior lessor is the premises are sub-let;
(iii) from the person in whom the right to let the premises vests, if they are unlet.
(2) If any land has been let for any term exceeding one year to a tenant and such tenant or any person deriving title howsoever from such tenant has built upon the land, the property tax assessed upon the said land and upon the building erected thereon shall be primarily payable by the said tenant or such person whether or not the premises be in the occupation of the said tenant or the person."
9. The contention of the appellants that having regard to sub Section 1(b)(iii) of Section 153, the khatha in respect of the said property is required to be made in the name of the appellants is ex- facie untenable and liable to be rejected as the said subsection -8- NC: 2025:KHC:40310-DB WA No. 657 of 2025 HC-KAR 1(b)(iii) would entitle 'a person in whom the right to let the premises rests, if they are unlet' to the change of revenue records. Admittedly, apart from the agreement of sale dated 10.03.1980 and the decree for injunction granted in OS No.9550/2014 restraining one Sri Nandukumar and one M.Puttaraju from interfering with the possession of the first appellant in the said property, there is no other document on the basis of which, the appellants claim title over the said property. However, the said documents do not vest title in the said property in favour of the appellants.
10. In view of the aforementioned, the above appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27