Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 8 December 2023

Case Overview

  • Petition: Writ Petition No. 12210 of 2023 (LB‑BMP) filed by M/S Kamath Transformers Pvt Ltd under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
  • Parties: Petitioner – Kamath Transformers Pvt Ltd (represented by Managing Director Sri Vishwanath Kamath and counsel Sri Srikanth Patil K.); Respondent 1 – Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd (KSSIDCL) represented by its Secretary; Respondent 2 – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) represented by its Assistant Revenue Officer, Mahalakshmipura Sub‑Division.
  • Property: Immovable factory building and land No. B‑71, situated in 2nd Cross, Peenya Industrial Estate, Bengaluru, covering 524.66 sq m. The property was purchased by the petitioner in auction proceedings initiated by KSSIDCL, confirmed by a Certificate of Sale issued by the 19th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in execution proceedings Ex.P.No.1101/1997.
  • Background: After the sale, the petitioner applied to BBMP for issuance of a Khata (property tax record). BBMP, on 26 September 2016, requested documents executed by KSSIDCL in favour of Raana Enterprises before processing the application. The petitioner subsequently submitted all required documents, but BBMP had not issued the Khata. The petitioner alleges that the endorsement dated 24 November 2022 (No. Sa.Ko.A./La.De.U/PR/639/22‑23) issued by BBMP is unlawful and seeks its quash and issuance of the Khata.
  • Counsel Submissions:
  • petitioner’s counsel argued that having acquired the property through a court‑sanctioned auction and paid all dues, the petitioner cannot be denied a Khata.
  • BBMP’s counsel (Sri Mallikarjun Reddy) contended that the application remained pending because KSSIDCL had not responded to BBMP’s earlier request for documents.
  • KSSIDCL’s counsel (Smt Manjula Nemichandra Tejaswi) maintained that the matter of Khata issuance lies solely between the petitioner and BBMP, and KSSIDCL has no role.
  • Evidence: The lease‑cum‑sale agreement and accompanying memo produced by the petitioner showed that the schedule of the property allotted to Raana Enterprises matches the property subject to the sale certificate and the petitioner's claim.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued and the endorsement dated 24 Nov 2022 (No. Sa.Ko.A./La.De.U/PR/639/22‑23) issued by BBMP is quashed.
  • BBMP is directed to consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with the Certificate of Sale and the boundary sketch attached thereto, and to issue the Khata certificate for property No. B‑71 within 30 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Topics: Court Order, Property Registration, Khata Issuance