(1.) This is the third writ petition in a line filed by the petitioner. Earlier too, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.7309/2008 with a prayer seeking to quash the endorsement dtd. 20/12/2004 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer of the BBMP, Banasawadi Sub-Division, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to register the name of the petitioner in the khatha register in respect of a portion of the property bearing site No.74/60 of Byrasandra, which the petitioner claims to have acquired under a registered partition deed dtd. 17/4/2004. This Court recorded the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP that if the petitioner produces the original title deed by which the petitioner's father obtained title over the property in question, then his application would be considered and the khatha would be transferred in the name of the petitioner. This Court directed that the application shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three weeks after the petitioner would produce the original title deed for verification. Nevertheless, when the khatha was not made out in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner once again filed Writ Petition No.40427/2011, again challenging an endorsement dtd. 10/8/2011. This Court upheld the contentions of the learned Counsel for the respondent- BBMP that since the petitioner did not produce the original title deed, there was nothing wrong in the endorsement being issued by the BBMP rejecting the application of the petitioner.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner's father was entered in the records of the then H.A.Sanitary Board, as could be seen from the document furnished by the Assistant Revenue Officer, C.V.Raman Nagar Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru at Annexure-W. Learned Counsel submits that an application was filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Right To Information Act ,2005, seeking copies of certain documents from the records of the then H.A.Sanitary Board pertaining to property in question. The Assistant Revenue Officer and the Information Officer, under the Right To Information of Act ,has in fact furnished a certified copy of the Assessment List of buildings and lands maintained by the H.A.Sanitary Board, which clearly shows that the name of the petitioner's father-Sri.Devappa S/o Narasimhappa was entered as the khathedar in respect of the property measuring 82x30 feet. Learned Counsel would further draw the attention of this Court to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, and submits that the provision does not prescribe or mandate that in the event of the death of any person primarily liable to pay property tax, the person claiming to have acquired title or inherited the title is required to produce the original title deeds for seeking transfer of khatha. While pointing out to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 114 ,learned Counsel would further submit that provision is made for the Commissioner to take action to transfer the khatha as and when it comes to the knowledge of the Commissioner or Authorized Officer that a person had acquired title over the property from the person whose name was earlier registered in the khatha registered of the BBMP. Moreover, it is submitted that there is no objection from any third party as regards the transfer of khatha or making of the khatha in favour of the petitioner on the strength of the partition deed.
(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent- BBMP submits that there has been an objection raised at the hands of one Smt.M.Rukmini, who was indeed arraigned as respondent No.3 in W.P.No.7309/2008. However, by a subsequent order, respondent No.3 was deleted before the final order was passed on 23/2/2010. Learned Counsel would also point out to few other documents where the name of Smt.M.Rukmini seems to have cropped up. In one of the endorsements, it is stated that Smt.M.Rukmini is the khathedar of the property in question.