PARAMESHKUMAR B. P. Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's mother Smt.Jayamma, purchased immovable property bearing No.12/A situated behind Minerva Mills, Bengaluru, within the limits of 13th Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), under a registered sale deed dtd. 7/5/1975. However, in the year 1992, the then Bangalore City Corporation utilized the property for construction of a wall protecting the Vrushabhavathi Water Canal. The petitioner's mother approached the Lokayukta in the year 2003 venting her grievance. When the officials of the BBMP were summoned by the Lokayukta, they admitted to have utilized the property belonging to the petitioner's mother but they undertook to allot an alternative site in favour of Smt.Jayamma. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner (South), BBMP executed a sale deed dtd. 19/6/2006 at Annexure 'C' in favour of the petitioner's mother in respect of property bearing No.45 situated at Muneshwara Layout, measuring 35' x 30' ft. Thereafter, Smt.Jayamma gave representations to the BBMP to register khata in her name. Smt.Jayamma passed away on 2/7/2009. Thereafter, the petitioner's father made several representations to the concerned Officers of the BBMP to execute khata in his name. Unfortunately, the petitioner's father also passed away in the year 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation on 14/6/2022 along with an affidavit showing the genealogical tree of Smt.Jayamma and her family. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the only child to his parents and there is no other siblings to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the respondent- BBMP in not executing the khata.

(2.) However, learned Counsel for the respondent- BBMP submits that an endorsement has been given to the petitioner on 11/7/2022 stating that the property for which khata is sought by the petitioner forms part of a park and therefore, he is requested to make an application seeking alternative site.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be incorrect to state that the site granted to the petitioner forms part of a park. However, when it was pointed out that these disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be given to the respondent- BBMP to consider grant of an alternative site in view of the impugned endorsement dtd. 11/7/2022.