GOPALRAO vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 103223 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
GOPALRAO
S/O TUKARAM KUKDOLKAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. BUILDER AND DEVELOPER,
R/O. TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI,
TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-04-590006.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D. RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01-560002.
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS,
RD
3 FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-09-560001.
3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
BELAGAVI OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR,
BELAGAVI, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
RESPONDENTS TO ACCEPT AND REGISTER SALE DEEDS EXECUTED
BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF REMAINING FLATS IN ‘KRISH
JEEVAN’, APARTMENT AS REQUESTED IN ANNEXURE-N DATED 14-
03-2026 AND ETC.,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 28.08.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to permit
registration of the sale deeds executed by the petitioner in
respect of the remaining flats in the residential apartment
known as “ Krish Jeevan Apartment ” , and in the alternative, to
provide a manual/alternate mode of registration until the
technical difficulties in the Kaveri-2.0 portal are rectified. The
petitioner has also sought a direction to the concerned
authorities to suitably modify the technical mapping in the
Kaveri-2.0 portal so as to recognise the leasehold interest of
the petitioner arising out of a Nirantara Patta/Perpetual Lease.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State and its authorities.
3. The petitioner is a builder and developer. The
petitioner’s case is that the property in question was acquired
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
from the erstwhile holder of the property, who was holding the
same under a Nirantara Patta/permanent lease. The petitioner
thereafter obtained the necessary permissions from the
competent local authority and constructed a residential
apartment consisting of 34 flats. A completion certificate has
also been issued by the competent local body.
4. It is not in dispute that out of the aforesaid 34 flats,
21 flats have already been sold and the respective sale deeds
have been registered. The registration of those documents took
place prior to the introduction/implementation of the present
Kaveri-2.0 portal. The petitioner submits that the documents
relating to those 21 flats were accepted for registration
notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner’s title traces its
origin to a Nirantara Patta/perpetual lease.
5. The difficulty has arisen in respect of the remaining
13 flats. According to the petitioner, after introduction of the
Kaveri-2.0 portal, the sale deeds presented by the petitioner
are not being processed on the ground that the petitioner’s
name does not appear as “Owner” in the municipal/e-property
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
records and that the original lessor is reflected as the owner,
while the petitioner is reflected merely as “Holder/Tax Payer”.
6. The petitioner contends that the difficulty is purely
a consequence of the manner in which the municipal/e-property
data is mapped and transmitted to the Kaveri-2.0 software. The
underlying title documents, according to the petitioner, disclose
a permanent and transferable leasehold interest. The petitioner
therefore submits that the software cannot be permitted to
defeat a substantive right otherwise recognised by law.
7. The record discloses that the issue was brought to
the notice of the authorities. In particular, the
endorsement/communication issued by respondent No.3 to
respondent No.2 records the difficulties being faced in
registration of documents relating to Nirantar Patta/Perpetual
Lease properties and specifically requests that such properties
be incorporated in the Kaveri-2.0 software so as to enable
registration, both in the public interest and for achieving the
revenue collection objectives of the State.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
8. Even more significantly, the subsequent
communication issued by the competent authority in response
to the representation of CREDAI, Belagavi, acknowledges that
in several areas of Belagavi city, properties are held under
Nirantar Patta/Perpetual Lease arrangements and that, while
the original lessors are reflected as “Owners” in e-property
records, the leaseholders are reflected as “Holders/Tax Payers”.
The communication recognises that, on account of the existing
API mapping, the name of the original owner is transmitted to
Kaveri instead of the name of the person actually holding the
perpetual leasehold interest and enjoying the property.
9. The authority has, therefore, itself requested that
necessary steps be taken so that, in cases where e-Khata has
been issued on the basis of Nirantar Patta/Perpetual Lease, the
name of the leaseholder/occupant is transmitted through the
API to the Kaveri software instead of mechanically transmitting
only the name of the original owner/lessor.
10. Thus, the grievance raised by the petitioner cannot
be characterised as a purely individual grievance. The material
placed before this Court demonstrates that the issue affects a
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
class of properties held under Nirantara Patta/Perpetual Lease
arrangements, particularly in the Belagavi region.
11. In the light of the pleadings, records and
submissions, the following question arises for consideration:
“Whether the respondents can refuse to process
and register the sale deeds executed by the
petitioner in respect of the flats constructed upon a
property held under a conveyable and transferable
Nirantara Patta/perpetual lease merely because the
municipal/e-property records and the Kaveri-2.0
portal reflect the original lessor as “Owner” and the
petitioner as “Holder/Tax Payer?”
Finding on point for consideration:
12. Before considering the factual records of the
present case, it would be appropriate to notice the legal
character of a lease.
13. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
defines a lease as a transfer of a right to enjoy immovable
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
property, either for a certain time or in perpetuity, in
consideration of the stipulated consideration/rent. Thus, a lease
is not a mere permission to occupy. It creates an interest in the
property, though the interest transferred is the right to enjoy
the property and not necessarily the entire corpus or
reversionary ownership.
14. Consequently, the expression “leasehold right”
cannot be equated with a mere right of permissive occupation.
A lease, depending upon its terms, may create a valuable
proprietary interest which is capable of possession, enjoyment,
inheritance, assignment, transfer and, where permissible under
its terms, mortgage.
15. Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act is also
significant. Subject to the contract or local usage to the
contrary, the lessee has a right to transfer absolutely or by way
of mortgage or sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest
in the property. The provision, therefore, recognises that the
interest of a lessee is itself an interest capable of transfer.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
16. The legal character of the interest, however, must
always depend upon the instrument creating the interest.
Merely because a document is described as a “Nirantara Patta”
would not, by itself, convert every such document into an
absolute conveyance of freehold title. The Court must examine
the grant, sanad, patta, lease deed, terms of the grant, the
duration, the rent/revenue covenant, the right of inheritance,
the right of transfer and the restrictions, if any, imposed upon
alienation.
17. In the present case, the Court is not called upon to
decide in the abstract whether every Nirantara Patta creates
absolute ownership. The issue before this Court is narrower and
is required to be determined on the basis of the documents
placed on record in the present case.
18. On examination of the documents relied upon by
the petitioner, this Court finds that the interest conveyed under
the Nirantara Patta is not a precarious or revocable licence. The
documents disclose a permanent/perpetual leasehold interest,
capable of being enjoyed by the holder subject to the
conditions of the grant. The records further disclose the right to
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
deal with the leasehold interest and the continuity of the
interest through successive holders.
19. The character of the documents is therefore that of
title documents in respect of the leasehold interest. They may
not convey the reversionary ownership in the land,
nevertheless, they unmistakably constitute documents of title
to the interest which was actually granted.
20. This distinction assumes considerable importance. A
person need not necessarily possess absolute freehold
ownership in order to possess a transferable proprietary
interest in immovable property. A perpetual lessee has an
interest in the property which, where the grant permits
transfer, can itself constitute the subject matter of a lawful
conveyance.
21. In other words, the question for the registering
authority is not whether the petitioner is the absolute owner of
the underlying land in the same sense as the original lessor.
The question is whether the petitioner possesses a legally
recognisable and transferable interest which he is competent to
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
convey. Based on the material placed before this Court, the
answer is clearly in the ‘ affirmative’ .
Judicial Precedents on the Nature and Transferability of
Nirantara Patta / Perpetual Leasehold Rights
22. In Smt. Marembi v. Jiyauddin Safisab Khatib in
RSA No. 205/1990 is of considerable assistance in
understanding the historical and legal significance of Nirantara
Patta transactions in the Belagavi region. In that case, the
property was traced to Government Sanads and registered
instruments granting permanent leasehold rights. The record
disclosed permissions relating to alienation and permanent
lease arrangements. A claim was also founded upon a
registered Nirantara Patta for valuable consideration, under
which possession had been delivered to the transferee. The
Court examined the Sanads, the registered permanent lease
deeds and the chain of transactions and treated those
documents as legally significant instruments relating to the
leasehold title. The dispute in that case ultimately turned upon
a competing claim regarding the character of the property as
wakf property.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
23. The significance of the decision for the present case
is not that every Nirantara Patta confers absolute ownership.
Rather, it is that a registered Nirantara Patta cannot be brushed
aside as though it were merely a rent receipt or an informal
document evidencing permissive occupation. Where the grant
and the documents disclose a permanent leasehold interest,
such documents constitute part of the title chain relating to that
interest.
24. The principle assumes greater relevance in the
present case because the petitioner’s documents do not stand
in isolation. They form part of a chain of title under which the
petitioner claims a permanent and transferable leasehold
interest, upon which construction has been undertaken after
obtaining statutory/local authority permissions.
25. The respondent-authorities, therefore, cannot treat
the petitioner as a mere unauthorised occupant merely because
the original lessor continues to be reflected as “Owner” in a
municipal database.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
26. The decision of this Court in Dr. V.M. Kerudi v.
Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department,
W.P. No.105498/2022 , is particularly relevant. In the said
case, this Court was dealing with a perpetual lease granted in
respect of municipal property. The State and the Municipality
sought to regulate the rights of the perpetual lessees and a
Government policy had also contemplated conversion of
leasehold rights into freehold rights upon payment of the
stipulated amount.
27. The Court held that the perpetual lease continued
to be valid and binding upon the State and the Municipality so
long as the lease rentals were duly paid. The Court further held
that the option of conversion from leasehold to freehold could
not be imposed upon the lessees against their will and that the
mere fact that the petitioners continued to hold the property as
perpetual lessees could not deprive them of the benefits and
incidents flowing from the perpetual lease.
28. The significance of Dr. V.M. Kerudi (supra) is that
a perpetual lease is recognised as a continuing and enforceable
proprietary interest. The fact that the municipality remains the
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
owner of the underlying property does not reduce the perpetual
lessee to a person having no proprietary interest whatsoever.
The decision also recognises that the lessee may exercise the
rights which legitimately flow from the perpetual lease,
including obtaining permissions and dealing with the property in
accordance with law.
29. The principle laid down in Dr. V.M. Kerudi (supra)
squarely answers the objection raised in the present case. If a
perpetual lease is recognised by the State and municipality as a
valid subsisting interest, the authorities cannot, through an
administrative or software mechanism, render that interest
incapable of being dealt with. It is equally relevant to note that
the Division Bench, while considering the subsequent
proceedings arising from the said judgment, did not disturb the
essential recognition of the subsisting perpetual leasehold
interest.
30. In Sri Rajaram S/o Jyotiba Melage v. Assistant
Director of Land Records, Writ Petition No.104052 OF
2015 , the petitioners traced their claim in Belagavi to a
Nirantara Patta, followed by mutation of their names in the
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
revenue records. The dispute before the Court involved
competing claims regarding the nature and title to the
property. The Court recognised that questions concerning the
ultimate nature of title and competing proprietary claims could
not be conclusively determined merely in mutation
proceedings. Where rival claims to title exist, the competent
civil court would ordinarily be the appropriate forum.
31. The said judgment, however, does not support the
proposition that a Nirantara Patta is legally meaningless. On the
contrary, the existence of the Nirantara Patta and the
consequential mutation were treated as relevant documents
giving rise to a serious claim of proprietary interest. The
distinction is important. A revenue or municipal entry by itself
does not create title. But neither can a database entry be
treated as destroying title otherwise flowing from a substantive
title document.
32. In the present case, there is no rival claimant
before this Court asserting that the petitioner’s Nirantara Patta
is forged, cancelled, void or otherwise incapable of conferring
the interest claimed by the petitioner. There is also no material
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
placed by the respondents establishing termination, forfeiture
or determination of the petitioner’s leasehold rights. Therefore,
the principle in Sri Rajaram (supra) does not authorise the
respondents to refuse registration merely because the
municipal database identifies the original lessor as owner. The
database cannot be elevated above the underlying title
documents.
33. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Provash Chandra Dalui v. Biswanath Banerjee, (1989) 4
SCC 495 , emphasises that the nature and extent of a lease
must be gathered from the terms of the instrument and the
intention disclosed therein. The nomenclature assigned to the
transaction is not by itself decisive.
34. The said principle is directly applicable here. The
documents produced by the petitioner have been examined for
the purpose of determining whether they disclose a permanent
and transferable leasehold interest. Upon such examination, the
Court finds that the documents are in the nature of permanent
lease documents, and the rights flowing from them have
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
continued through the chain of transactions. The documents
therefore constitute title documents to the leasehold interest.
35. Consequently, the respondents cannot reject the
petitioner’s request by applying a general proposition that a
lessee is not an owner. Such an approach overlooks the
distinction between ownership of the reversion and ownership
of the leasehold interest.
36. In State of U.P. v. Lalji Tandon, (2004) 1 SCC
1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that a lease in
perpetuity is not unknown to Indian law. The Hon’ble Apex
Court further examined the effect of renewal clauses and the
rights of the lessee under a lease. The decision is relevant for
another reason. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that
the nature and incidents of a lease must be determined from
the terms of the instrument. Where the instrument creates a
continuing leasehold interest, the State or the lessor cannot
disregard the rights created thereunder merely because the
underlying title remains with the lessor.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
37. The present case concerns a stronger factual
situation. The petitioner is not claiming a right based merely
upon continued possession after expiry of a fixed-term lease.
The very documents relied upon disclose a
permanent/perpetual leasehold arrangement. There is no
allegation before this Court that the lease has been determined
in accordance with law. Thus, the continued description of the
original lessor as “Owner” cannot, by itself, justify denial of the
petitioner’s right to deal with the interest actually vested in
him.
38. In the present case, the governing legal regime
consists of the terms of the Nirantara Patta, the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and the applicable registration and
municipal laws. None of these provisions authorises a software
portal to extinguish a subsisting leasehold interest.
39. In Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National
Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reiterated the importance of applying the statutory scheme as
enacted and cautioned against enlarging rights beyond what
the statute permits.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
40. That principle actually operates against the
respondents in the present case. The authorities cannot, by
relying upon an administrative software configuration, create a
prohibition which is not found in the governing statute or in the
terms of the petitioner’s lease. A software portal is a
mechanism for implementing the law. It cannot become the
source of the law itself.
Whether The Petitioner Has A Transferable Interest
41. The central question, therefore, is whether the
petitioner possesses an interest capable of being conveyed. The
answer must be determined by reference to the documents
creating the petitioner’s interest. On the material before this
Court, the Nirantara Patta/permanent lease is not shown to
contain a prohibition against transfer of the leasehold interest.
On the contrary, the historical documents and subsequent
transactions placed before the Court demonstrate that the
interest has been treated as heritable and transferable.
42. The petitioner has further relied upon the fact that
the same title documents and substantially identical documents
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
were accepted by the registration authorities in respect of 21
flats. This circumstance is of considerable significance, though
not because an earlier administrative act can confer title where
none exists. The significance lies in the fact that the authorities
themselves have, prior to the introduction of Kaveri-2.0,
processed and registered transactions arising out of the very
same chain of title.
43. The State has not placed before this Court any
order cancelling those registrations. It has not alleged that the
petitioner’s underlying leasehold title ceased to exist. It has not
alleged any default resulting in determination or forfeiture of
the lease. It has not pointed out any statutory prohibition which
came into force between the registration of the first 21 flats
and the refusal to process the remaining flats.
44. The only intervening circumstance appears to be
the introduction of the Kaveri-2.0 portal and the manner in
which data from the municipal/e-property system is mapped
into the registration system. Such a change in technology
cannot result in a change in substantive rights.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
45. The State is undoubtedly entitled to modernise the
registration process. It is also entitled to insist upon verification
of title, payment of proper stamp duty and registration fee,
compliance with statutory requirements and production of
necessary documents. But it cannot permit a technological
architecture to produce a result which the substantive law does
not contemplate.
Municipal Records And The Kaveri-2.0 Portal
46. The documents placed on record demonstrate that
the problem is not confined to the petitioner. The
communication issued by the authority in response to CREDAI’s
representation expressly acknowledges the problem arising in
cases of Nirantar Patta/Perpetual Lease properties.
47. The communication records that the original lessor
is reflected as “Owner” while the leaseholder is reflected as
“Holder/Tax Payer”, with the consequence that the API
transmits the name of the original owner to the Kaveri software
and thereby prevents registration. The authority itself has
recognised the need to transmit the name of the
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
leaseholder/occupant to the Kaveri software in appropriate
cases.
48. This is an important admission. The difficulty is
therefore not one of absence of a legal mechanism to register
leasehold transactions. It is a mapping defect between the
municipal/e-property database and the registration portal. The
appropriate solution cannot be to compel citizens to convert
their perpetual leasehold rights into freehold rights merely to
overcome a software limitation. Nor can citizens be required to
litigate individually every time the portal refuses to recognise a
lawful leasehold interest.
49. If the underlying property is held by the
municipality or another lessor and the petitioner holds a
perpetual lease, the municipal record may appropriately
continue to identify the original lessor as the owner of the
reversionary interest. But the record must simultaneously
identify the person holding the leasehold interest in a manner
capable of being transmitted to the registration system.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
50. Therefore, the Court is not directing the
respondents to falsely describe a perpetual lessee as the
absolute owner of the land. The direction is to ensure that the
leasehold interest is correctly classified and mapped, so that
the name of the person competent to convey that interest is
available to the registration system. The municipal/e-property
records and Form No.2, wherever applicable, must therefore
provide for appropriate classification of the holder of a
Nirantara Patta/perpetual lease as a leaseholder/holder of
leasehold title, and the relevant field must be mapped with the
Kaveri 2.0 system.
51. The object is not to alter the substantive title of the
reversionary owner. The object is to prevent the technical
system from suppressing the separate and legally recognised
interest of the leaseholder.
Right To Deal With Property
52. A citizen who possesses a lawful proprietary interest
cannot be prevented from dealing with that interest except by
authority of law. Article 300-A of the Constitution recognises
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority
of law. While Article 300-A does not confer an unrestricted right
to alienate every species of property, it does reinforce the basic
principle that proprietary interests cannot be extinguished or
rendered illusory by executive action unsupported by law.
53. In the present case, the petitioner seeks to convey
not the reversionary ownership of the original lessor but the
leasehold interest vested in the petitioner. If that interest is
transferable under the governing documents and law, the State
cannot prevent its transfer merely because its software does
not presently contain a corresponding field. A State
instrumentality cannot say that because its computer system is
not configured to recognise a particular lawful interest, the
citizen’s right to deal with that interest must remain suspended
indefinitely. Technology is intended to facilitate the exercise of
rights and the discharge of statutory functions. It cannot
become an impediment to the exercise of substantive rights.
54. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot
be ignored. The petitioner has placed material to demonstrate
that he has availed substantial financial assistance for the
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
project. The record indicates that a loan of approximately Rs.6
crores has been availed and that the petitioner is required to
service substantial financial obligations. The petitioner has also
placed on record material relating to the EMI burden, including
the document at Annexure-K, which indicates a monthly
financial commitment of approximately Rs.50 lakhs.
55. The petitioner has further stated that, because the
remaining flats cannot be sold and registered, he has been
compelled to refund amounts to certain prospective purchasers
and is facing severe financial strain.
56. This Court is conscious that the existence of
financial liability by itself cannot confer a title which the
petitioner does not possess. Equally, however, once the Court
finds that the petitioner possesses a legally recognised and
transferable leasehold interest, the financial consequences of
an administrative impediment become a relevant circumstance
in determining whether immediate corrective directions are
warranted.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
57. The petitioner has invested in the development of
the property, obtained the requisite permissions, constructed
34 flats and successfully registered 21 flats. The remaining
transactions are now being obstructed not on account of a
declaration that the petitioner’s leasehold interest is void or
terminated, but on account of a technical mismatch between
municipal records and the registration portal.
58. If the petitioner is otherwise entitled in law to
convey the leasehold interest, he cannot be compelled to suffer
continuing financial consequences merely because the State
has not yet configured its digital system to recognise that
interest. The right of a citizen to deal with his property, subject
of course to the restrictions imposed by law and the terms of
the title document, cannot be made dependent upon the speed
at which an administrative software system is modified.
59. There is also a larger public interest involved.
Registration of lawful conveyances generates stamp duty and
registration revenue for the State. If a class of otherwise
registrable transactions is prevented from being processed
merely because of a technical mapping defect, the State itself
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
suffers loss of legitimate revenue. The endorsement issued by
the authorities recognises precisely this aspect. It records that
permitting Nirantar Patta/Perpetual Lease properties in the
Kaveri-2.0 system would be in the public interest and would
facilitate achievement of the State’s revenue collection
objectives.
60. Therefore, there is no conflict between the interest
of the petitioner and the interest of the State. On the contrary,
removal of the technical impediment would facilitate lawful
transactions, protect the interests of purchasers, enable
payment of stamp duty and registration fee and augment State
revenue.
61. The present petition demonstrates a larger
administrative issue. The record indicates that several
properties in Belagavi city and surrounding areas are held
under Nirantar Patta/Perpetual Lease arrangements. If the
existing software mapping treats the original lessor as the only
person entitled to be transmitted to Kaveri-2.0, all subsequent
transactions concerning the leasehold interest would face the
same difficulty. It would therefore be inappropriate to grant a
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
direction confined only to the petitioner’s 13 flats and leave the
underlying technical defect untouched.
62. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department, and the Director of Municipal Administration are
therefore required to examine the matter at the policy and
technical level and ensure that the municipal/e-property
database and the Kaveri-2.0 registration portal are capable of
recognising the distinction between:
(i) the owner of the reversionary interest, and
(ii) the holder of the perpetual/leasehold interest.
63. Such distinction is legally necessary. The system
must not compel the municipal authority to declare a lessee to
be the absolute owner. At the same time, it must not prevent
the leaseholder from exercising rights which lawfully arise from
the lease.
64. The appropriate classification may therefore
indicate the original lessor as the owner of the
underlying/reversionary title and the Nirantara Patta holder as
the holder of the perpetual leasehold/transferable interest, with
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
the latter being transmitted to Kaveri-2.0 for purposes of
processing documents concerning the leasehold interest.
Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the
‘ negative’ .
CONCLUSIONS:
65. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of
the considered view that the Nirantara Patta relied upon by the
petitioner, on a cumulative consideration of the terms of the
grant and the documents forming part of the title chain, creates
a permanent/perpetual leasehold interest which is heritable and
transferable. The said interest constitutes a legally recognisable
title to the leasehold estate and, subject to the terms of the
grant and the applicable law, is capable of being conveyed. The
petitioner, therefore, cannot be compelled to first obtain
conversion of the leasehold interest into freehold ownership as
a condition precedent for conveying the interest which he
otherwise lawfully holds.
66. The material on record further establishes that 21
flats out of the 34 flats constructed by the petitioner have
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
already been sold and the corresponding sale deeds have been
registered, prior to the introduction of the Kaveri-2.0 portal.
The refusal to process the remaining sale deeds is not founded
upon any determination that the petitioner’s leasehold interest
is invalid, terminated, forfeited or incapable of transfer. The
impediment is essentially attributable to the manner in which
the municipal/e-property records are presently mapped with
the Kaveri-2.0 portal.
67. The respondents cannot, by reason of a technical
deficiency in the software or the existing data-mapping
mechanism, render a legally recognised and transferable
leasehold interest incapable of being conveyed. A software
system is a means for implementation of the law, it cannot
become a source for extinguishing or restricting substantive
rights which otherwise flow from law and the title documents.
68. This Court is also conscious of the distinction
between the ownership of the underlying/reversionary interest
and the ownership of the leasehold estate. The original lessor
may continue to remain the owner of the underlying land;
nevertheless, the perpetual lessee holds a distinct and legally
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
protected proprietary interest in the leasehold estate. The
municipal and e-property records must, therefore,
appropriately reflect both interests without conflating one with
the other.
69. The financial circumstances placed before this
Court, including the substantial loan liability incurred by the
petitioner for the project, the considerable EMI burden and
further demonstrate the continuing prejudice occasioned by the
present technical impediment. These circumstances are not the
foundation for declaring the petitioner’s title, but reinforce the
necessity for the competent authorities to act expeditiously
where a lawful proprietary interest is otherwise capable of
being transferred.
70. The respondents themselves have recognised the
difficulty relating to registration of properties held under
Nirantara Patta/Perpetual Lease and the need to suitably
modify the existing API/mapping mechanism so that the name
of the leaseholder, with appropriate classification of his
interest, is transmitted to the Kaveri-2.0 system. The issue,
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
therefore, requires a systemic solution rather than leaving
similarly situated citizens to approach this Court individually.
71. The State is undoubtedly entitled to undertake
statutory scrutiny of every document presented for registration,
including scrutiny of the title, transferability of the interest,
compliance with the terms of the lease, payment of stamp duty
and registration fee and compliance with all other statutory
requirements. However, such statutory scrutiny cannot be
substituted by or reduced to an automated rejection generated
merely because the software does not recognise the
leaseholder’s name.
72. It is, therefore, necessary to issue a positive
direction to the Director of Municipal Administration to rectify
the existing technical impediment and introduce an appropriate
mapping mechanism in the municipal/e-property records and
the Kaveri-2.0 system so as to recognise and transmit the
transferable interest of a holder of a valid Nirantara
Patta/permanent lease.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
73. Such exercise shall not result in treating the
perpetual lessee as the absolute owner of the underlying land.
The object is only to ensure that the permanent leasehold
interest is separately identified, appropriately classified and
made capable of being conveyed through the registration
system, in accordance with the terms of the grant and
applicable law.
74. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief and
that corresponding directions are required to be issued to the
respondent-authorities in order to ensure that a technological
impediment does not defeat a substantive right recognised in
law.
75. Accordingly, the Director of Municipal
Administration is directed to forthwith undertake necessary
amendments in the mapping of Form No.2/e-property
records/API interface, wherever necessary, so as to
appropriately capture and transmit the name of the holder of a
valid Nirantara Patta/permanent lease, with proper
classification of the permanent leasehold/transferable interest,
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
to the Kaveri-2.0 portal. The entire exercise shall be completed
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. In the event the Director of
Municipal Administration fails to carry out the aforesaid
amendment and mapping within the stipulated period, the
jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall, notwithstanding such failure,
receive and process the sale deeds presented by the petitioner
for conveying the permanent leasehold rights and shall effect
registration thereof through manual mode, subject to
satisfaction of all statutory requirements governing registration
and the transferability of the concerned leasehold interest.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed .
(ii) The endorsement/communication issued by
respondent No.3, insofar as it prevents or declines
processing/registration of the petitioner’s sale
deeds solely on the ground that the petitioner is
reflected as a perpetual lessee/leaseholder and not
as the absolute owner in the municipal/e-property
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
records or that his name is not fetched by the
Kaveri-2.0 portal, is quashed to that limited extent.
(iii) The Director of Municipal Administration,
Government of Karnataka, in coordination with the
Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department and the concerned municipal
authorities, is hereby directed to undertake
necessary amendments in the mapping of Form
No.2/e-property records/API interface so as to
appropriately capture the name of the holder of a
valid Nirantara Patta/permanent lease and transmit
the same to the Kaveri-2.0 portal with proper
classification of his permanent
leasehold/transferable interest, without disturbing
or altering the reversionary ownership of the
original lessor.
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
(v) The Director of Municipal Administration and the
concerned municipal authorities shall ensure that
the municipal/e-property records maintain a clear
distinction between the owner of the
underlying/reversionary interest and the holder of
the permanent/perpetual leasehold interest, and
that the latter’s transferable interest is duly
mapped and communicated to the Kaveri-2.0
registration system.
(vi) In the event the Director of Municipal
Administration fails to undertake and complete the
aforesaid amendment and mapping within the
period of two months stipulated herein, the
jurisdictional Sub-Registrar is hereby directed to
receive, process and register, through manual
mode, the sale deeds presented by the petitioner
conveying the permanent leasehold rights in
respect of the remaining flats in “Krish Jeevan
Apartment”.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
(vii) The manual registration contemplated in paragraph
(vi) shall remain subject to the petitioner satisfying
all applicable statutory requirements, including
verification of the original Nirantara
Patta/permanent lease, chain of title, transferability
of the leasehold interest, identity of the executants,
payment of requisite stamp duty and registration
fee and compliance with the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908, the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 and other applicable laws.
(viii) It is made clear that the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar
shall not refuse registration merely on the ground
that the Kaveri-2.0 portal does not facilitate or
recognise the transfer of the permanent
leasehold/Nirantara Patta interest, once the
petitioner otherwise satisfies the statutory
requirements for registration.
(ix) The above directions shall not be construed as
declaring the petitioner to be the absolute owner of
the underlying land. The declaration is confined to
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
the petitioner’s permanent/perpetual leasehold
interest, which, on the documents placed before
this Court, is a legally recognisable title capable of
being conveyed, subject to the terms of the grant
and applicable law.
(x) Nothing contained in this order shall preclude the
competent authority from undertaking statutory
scrutiny or from refusing registration for any legally
sustainable ground, including a valid prohibition
against transfer, termination or forfeiture of the
lease, want of requisite title or non-compliance with
mandatory statutory requirements. However,
technical inability of the Kaveri-2.0 portal to
recognise the petitioner’s permanent leasehold
interest shall not, by itself, constitute a ground for
refusal of registration.
(xiii) A copy of this order shall be communicated to the
Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Government of Karnataka, and the
Director of Municipal Administration, Government of
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14311
WP No. 103223 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067642026
Karnataka, for immediate and necessary
compliance.
(xi) The Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department and the Director of Municipal
Administration shall circulate appropriate
instructions to the concerned municipal authorities
and registering authorities for strict compliance
with the aforesaid directions.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
MBS
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM