Sri. K. N. Sanjay v. Bengaluru Development Authority

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40164( WP(No.(13253(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010280412026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

ST DATED(THIS(THE(31 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R.(NATARAJ(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(13253(OF(2026((BDA)(

BETWEEN:(( (

1., SRI.,K.N.,SANJAY, S/O.,K.,NARAYANASWAMY,, AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS,, R/AT.,NO.41/1,,OLD,SOCIETY,ROAD,,

KODIGEHALLI,VILLAGE,,, SAHAKARANAGARA,POST,, BENGALURU-560092, ,

2., SMT.,RAKSHA,A., W/O,SANJAY,K.N., AGED,ABOUT,32,YEARS,, R/AT.,NO.41/1,,OLD,SOCIETY,ROAD,,

KODIGEHALLI,VILLAGE,, SAHAKARANAGARA,POST,, BENGALURU-560092, …PETITIONERS, Digitally signedtiby (BY,SRI.,DILIP,KUMAR,I.S.,,ADVOCATE), HEMALATHA0J Location: AND:(HIGH0COURT OF ( KARNATAKA 1., BENGALURU,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY, KUMARA,PARK,WEST,,, T.,CHOWDAIAH,ROAD,,, BENGALURU-560020, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,COMMISSIONER, ,

2., REVENUE,OFFICER,(N), BENGALURU,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,, BENGALURU,NORTH,, BENGALURU-560032, , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40164( WP(No.(13253(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010280412026( ( (

3., M.D.GANESH,PRASAD, S/O,M.N.DORESWAMY, AGED,ABOUT,64,YEARS,,, R/AT,NO.4,,GROUND,FLOOR,, AMRITHA,ENCLAVE,, RD23 ,STREET,,NAGANALLURU,, TAMILNADU-600061, , AMENDED,AS,PER,ORDER,DATED,05.06.2026, ,

4., HEMA,URS,H.Y., D/O,N.,LEELA, W/O,SHANTHARAJA,URS, NO.1571,,RANGOLI,HALLA,, HASSAN-573021., , AMENDED,AS,PER,ORDER,,DATED,31.07.2026, …RESPONDENTS, (BY, SRI., KARTHIKEYAN, B.S.,, ADVOCATE, FOR, RESPONDENT, NOS.1, AND,2;, SRI.,RAJATH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,RESPONDENT,NO.4;, VIDE,ORDER,DATED,10.07.2026,,NOTICE,TO,RESPONDENT,NO.3,IS, HELD,SUFFICIENT), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, NOTICE, BEARING, NO.BDA/RA(N)/438/2025-26, DATED, 10.03.2026, ISSUED, NDBY,THE,2 ,RESPONDENT,PRODUCED,AT,ANNEXURE-A., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,ORDERS,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER, WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,R.,NATARAJ, ,

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have called in question a notice bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/PÀAC(G)/438/2025-26 dated 10.03.2026 issued by the respondent No.2.

2.

(i) The petitioners claim that they purchased site No.71 situate at NTI layout, Rajeev Gandhi Nagara, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru from its owner Sri. M.D.Ganesh Prasad in terms of a sale deed dated 16.08.2024. They contend that consequent to the said sale, the khata in respect of the aforesaid property was transferred by respondent No.1 in their favour. They contend that they are in possession of the aforesaid property and that the khata stands in the name of petitioner No.1.

(ii) They contend that on 25.04.2025, Smt. Hema Urs lodged a complaint against them stating that her parents - Mr. Yograj Aras and Smt. Leela had purchased the aforesaid site from Mr. M. D. Ganesh Prasad son of late Sri. M.N.Doreswamy and that the registration of the sale deed was kept pending in the office of the Sub-Registrar on account of deficit stamp duty and registration fee. She contended that after the demise of

her mother on 26.08.2002, her father also died on 16.09.2002, thereafter she paid the deficit stamp duty and registration fee on 25.03.2025 and got the sale deed registered in her favour.

(iii) She contended that since the petitioners had obtained a sale deed in respect of the very same property from an impersonator, a complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police station who registered Cr.No.132/2025 against the petitioners.

(iv) The petitioners contended that after purchasing the aforesaid property, they mortgaged the same in favour of Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. by depositing the title deeds, which is evidenced by a document dated 06.09.2024 registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Ganganagara, Bengaluru. They contend that a fictitious person claiming to be Mr. M. D. Ganesh Prasad lodged a complaint before the respondent No.2 alleging that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners was fraudulent and therefore, sought for cancellation of the khata issued in the name of the petitioner No.1. Following this, the respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice dated

10.03.2026. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the same.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the question whether the vendor of the petitioners was the respondent No.3 - Mr. M. D. Ganesh Prasad who was allotted the site by the NTI Housing Society, or an impersonator, cannot be determined by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in proceedings relating to mutation of Khata. He contends that if the respondent No.3 disputes the sale deed executed in favour of petitioners, it is for him to challenge the same before the Civil Court. He contends that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no authority in law to disturb the E-khata standing in the name of the petitioner No.1 which is based on a registered sale deed. He thus contends that the impugned notice is a colourable exercise of power by the respondent No.2 and prays that the same be set at nought.

¶4Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.3 - Mr. M.D.Ganesh Prasad son of late Sri. M.N.Doreswamy has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that he is the real owner of the aforesaid site and that

he did not convey the same to the petitioners, but had conveyed it in favour of Smt. Leela. He therefore contends that the question whether the khata standing in the name of the petitioner No.1 is liable to be continued or cancelled requires consideration by respondent No.2. He therefore submits that if the petitioners have any grievance against the impugned notice, they may file their objections before the respondent No.2 who would consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶5I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶6The petitioners claim to have purchased site No.71 situate at NTI layout, Rajiv Gandi Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru from Mr. M.D.Ganesh Prasad son of late Sri. M.N.Doreswamy. It is not in dispute that the original allottee and owner of the property was Mr. M.D.Ganesh Prasad son of late Sri. M.N.Doreswamy. However, respondent No.3 claims that he is the owner of the property and that the petitioners have

purchased the said property from an impersonator and not from him.

¶7As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid dispute can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. The respondent No.2 cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to record any finding of fact. In that view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served in directing the petitioners to appear before the respondent No.2 and file their objections, as such an exercise would be futile.

¶8In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed, the impugned notice bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/PÀAC(G)/438/2025-26 dated 10.03.2026 issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed. The respondent No.3 is at liberty to take necessary steps as provided in law, as against the sale deed claimed by the petitioners.

¶9All contentions are kept open.

Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8