SHRI DHANRAJ K.R., S/O. SHRI N. RAMAMURTHY AND PETITIONERS Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have called in question the legality and correctness of the order/endorsement dated 09.11.2017 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-D to the writ petitions.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioners that there was a family partition between the members of the joint family, whereby, the petitioners have been allotted among other items, an immovable property bearing Sy.Nos.20 and 21 situated at Kammanahalli Main Road, Bengaluru as their share under a registered deed of partition dividing the properties held and possessed by the Hindu Undivided Family. Under the said partition deed, each of the Hissedars have become absolute owners and have taken exclusive possession of the items allotted to hissedars. Therefore, the petition deed being a registered instruqment of transfer of property rights, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities to transfer the khatha in respect of property No.20, Kammanahalli Main Road, Ward No.29, Kacharakanahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, fallen to their share under the said partition. It is on the objections filed by Sri. R. Jagadish-respondent No.3, who is none other than the brother of petitioner No.1, respondent authorities issued endorsement directing the petitioners to submit representation with notarized 'no objection certificate' issued from Sri N.Ramamurthy and Smt.Leelamma @ Neelamma-parents of petitioner No.1, pursuant to which, petitioner No.1 has caused representation through a registered post and the same has been returned unserved with postal endorsement 'unserved'. Later on, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioners that parents of petitioner No.1 are now at abroad and as such obtaining 'no objection certificate' from them is nay impossible. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 authorities ought to have considered the request of the petitioners to transfer khatha in respect of the property in question in their names in terms of clauses of the registered partition deed dated 19.08.2011. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Kamal Chopra v. Commissioner, Corporation of The City of Bengaluru, reported in ILR 1988 KAR 2416.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the hands of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material on record.