SRI NAGABHUSHANA vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR
®




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 26 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 17679 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 26870 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)



IN W.P.NO.17679/2024
BETWEEN

SRI NAGABHUSHANA
S/O A S RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.41, P AND T COLONY
NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE
HEMAVATHI NAGARA
SARASWATHIPURAM
HASSAN-573201
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA., ADVOCATE)

AND








Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
C R SECTION, K R CIRCLE
BESCOM
BENGALURU-560001.

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
C4 SUB-DIVISION,
NO.34, 1 MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGARA,
BENGALURU 560 032

3. DGM (LAW)
BESCOM
ST
CORPORATE OFFICE, 1 FLOOR,

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE -560001


4. L.M. SARVAMANGALA
D/O LATE L. MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.118, JANAHAVI CLUSTERS,
ND TH
F-2, 2 FLOOR, 6 MAIN,
P AD T COLONY,
SANJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560094.

…. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. L.M. SARVAMANGALA., PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A
DATED 2-2-2024 AEE/C4/HBL/AET/1995/2023-24 OF THE AND
CONSEQUENTLY WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO RESTORE
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY TO THE METER C4EH34304 CONNECTION TO
THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

IN W.P.NO.26870/2023
BETWEEN

SRI NAGABHUSHANA
S/O A S RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.41, P AND T COLONY
NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE
HEMAVATHI NAGARA
SARASWATHIPURAM
HASSAN-573201
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA., ADVOCATE)

AND


1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
C R SECTION, K R CIRCLE
BESCOM

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


BENGALURU-560001.

2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST)
MAYO HALL, BENGALURU-560001.

3. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
HEBBAL SUB-DIVISION,
BBMP,
BENGALURU-560024.


4. L.M. SARVAMANGALA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
ND
R/AT NO.118, F-2, 2 FLOOR,
TH
6 MAIN, P AD T COLONY,
SANJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560094.

…. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. L.M. SARVAMANGALA., PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
ND TH
THE 2 RESPONDENT DATED 6 MARCH 2023 IN CASE
NO.3066/17-18 AS PER ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.01.2026, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


CAV ORDER


1. The petitioner in W.P.No.17679/2024 is before the
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Quash Annexure-A dated 2.2.2024
AEE/C4/HBL/AET/1995/2023-24 of the and
consequently writ in the nature of mandamus to
restore electricity supply to the Meter C4EH34304
connection to the schedule property.

(b) Issue such other order or direction as deemed fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the case,
in the interest of justice and equity.



2. The petitioner in W.P.No.26870/2023 is before the
Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside
nd th
the order passed by the 2 respondent dated 6
March 2023 in case No. 3066/17-18 as per Annexure-
A1;

b) Consequently direct the BBMP authority to transfer
khatha in petitioner’s name.

c) Issue such other order or direction as deemed fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the case
in the interest of justice and equity.

FACTS IN W.P. NO. 26870/2023:

3. The petitioners assert that the immovable property
bearing No.118, P&T Colony Layout, First Stage,
Geddalahalli, falling within Corporation Division
No.100, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru (hereinafter

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


referred to as “the schedule property”), originally
belonged to one Sri Prabhakar Sastri and Smt. Savita
Sastri. The said owners are stated to have entered
into a development arrangement with a builder
during the year 1995, pursuant to which a
sanctioned building plan and licence were obtained
from the competent authority. In furtherance
thereof, a residential apartment complex styled as
“Janhavhi Clusters” was constructed on the said
property.

4. It is contended that Flat No.3 situated on the third
floor of the said apartment complex, together with
the proportionate undivided share in the underlying
land, was conveyed by the original owners in favour
of Smt. Revathi, wife of Chitty Babu, under a
registered sale deed dated 11.06.2003. Consequent
upon the said registered conveyance, the Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) effected
transfer of khata in the name of Smt. Revathi on
30.07.2003 and assigned PID No.110-738-118/5,
thereby recognising her as the person liable for
property tax in respect of the said flat.

5. The petitioners further state that the said Smt.
Revathi had created a mortgage over the subject

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


property in favour of the State Bank of India as
security for financial assistance availed by her. Upon
alleged default in repayment of the equated monthly
instalments (EMIs), the loan account was classified
as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), and proceedings
were initiated under the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as “ the SARFAESI Act ”).

6. A demand notice under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act was issued on 10.09.2011. Thereafter,
upon compliance with the statutory procedure
contemplated under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the
Act, the secured asset was brought to sale by way of
public auction. One Sri A.V. Naresh emerged as the
highest bidder, and a sale certificate was issued in
his favour in accordance with the Rules framed under
the Act. The said A.V. Naresh subsequently conveyed
the property to the present petitioner under a
registered sale deed dated 07.01.2020, thereby
transferring all his right, title and interest in the
subject flat to the petitioner.

7. It is further averred that on 16.07.2011, one Ms.
L.M. Sarvamangala, who is presently arrayed as

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


respondent No.4, had lodged objections before the
BBMP in relation to the khata standing in the name of
Smt. Revathi and sought cancellation thereof.

8. The petitioner, having acquired the property under
the registered sale deed dated 07.01.2020,
submitted an application on 10.05.2022 seeking
transfer of khata in his name on the basis of the sale
certificate and subsequent conveyance. Instead of
adjudicating upon the petitioner’s application for
transfer of khata in accordance with law, the BBMP,
by order dated 06.03.2023, proceeded to cancel the
khata that stood in the name of Smt. Revathi.

9. The petitioners contend that the impugned order of
cancellation has been passed without affording due
opportunity to the petitioner, without adjudicating
inter se title in an appropriate forum, and without
considering the legal effect of the sale certificate
issued under the SARFAESI Act and the subsequent
registered conveyance in favour of the petitioner. It
is this order dated 06.03.2023 cancelling the khata
that is assailed in the present writ petition, wherein
the aforesaid reliefs are sought for.

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


FACTS IN W.P NO. 17679/2024;

10. The factual matrix, up to and including the order
dated 06.03.2023, cancelling the khata, remains
identical to that narrated hereinabove and is not
reiterated for the sake of brevity.

11. Subsequent to the cancellation of the khata, the
respondents in W.P. No.17679/2024, namely the
authorities of the Bangalore Electricity Supply
Company Limited (BESCOM), initiated steps to
disconnect the electricity supply to the subject
premises. In the backdrop of such action, the
petitioner informed the said authorities that W.P.
No.26870/2023 had already been instituted,
challenging the order of cancellation of the khata and
that this Court had granted an interim order directing
maintenance of the status quo.

12. Despite being apprised of the pendency of the said
writ petition and the subsistence of the interim order
of status quo, the BESCOM authorities issued a
notice dated 02.02.2024 proposing the disconnection
of electricity supply to the scheduled property.

13. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said notice, which is
alleged to be contrary to the interim order passed by
this Court and violative of principles of administrative

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


propriety, the petitioner has instituted the present
writ petition seeking quashing of the notice dated
02.02.2024 and for consequential reliefs to protect
the subsisting electricity connection pending
adjudication of the dispute relating to the khata.

14. Shri. Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that,

14.1. The power of review under Section 114A of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and
Section 150 of the BBMP Act can be exercised
only within a period of three years from the
date on which the transfer of title is recorded.
In the present case, the khata was transferred
to the name of Smt. Revathi on 30.07.2003.
However, respondent No.4 filed objections only
on 16.07.2011, nearly eight years after the
entry was made. The impugned order
cancelling the khata was ultimately passed on
06.03.2023, almost twenty years after the
original transfer. It is therefore contended that
both the initiation of proceedings and the
passing of the order are clearly barred by
limitation. Once the prescribed period of three
years has expired, the authority cannot

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


exercise its power of review at a later point in
time.

14.2.
It is further submitted that the khata in favour
of Smt. Revathi was granted on the basis of a
valid registered sale deed dated 11.06.2003.
There was no fraud, misrepresentation, or
suppression of material facts. Property tax has
been regularly paid. The transfer was recorded
in accordance with the law. Such an entry,
which stood for nearly two decades, cannot be
cancelled merely on the basis of a complaint by
another occupant of the building.

14.3.
The learned counsel further submits that after
the petitioner purchased the property under a
registered sale deed dated 07.01.2020, he filed
an application on 10.05.2020 seeking transfer
of the khata in his name. The Corporation was
required to consider this application and pass
appropriate orders within a reasonable time.
However, no decision was taken. Instead of
deciding the petitioner’s application, the
authority proceeded to cancel the earlier khata.
In these circumstances, it is submitted that this
Court may issue a writ of mandamus directing

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


the Corporation to consider the petitioner’s
application and transfer the khata in his name.

14.4.
It is also contended that the impugned order
passed by the Joint Commissioner is without
jurisdiction and contrary to law. The khata had
remained in existence for nearly twenty years.
During this period, the property was mortgaged
to a bank, brought to sale under the SARFAESI
Act, purchased in auction, and thereafter
conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner
purchased the property bona fide, relying upon
the existing municipal records. At this stage,
the cancellation of the khata adversely affects
his rights and unsettles transactions that have
already taken place.

14.5. It is therefore submitted that in the absence of
any allegation or finding of fraud, the power of
review could not have been exercised. The
cancellation of the khata is illegal and liable to
be set aside, and consequential relief ought to
be granted in favour of the petitioner.

14.6. He relies upon the Judgment of a coordinate
Bench of this Court reported in Jayamma vs.

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


1
The Assistant Revenue Officer & Others ,
more particularly para 5 and 6 thereof, which
are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
5. For the purpose of this case, suffice it to notice
that Sub-Section (12) of Section 114 requires the
transferor and the transferee to give a notice in
writing to the Commissioner of the City Corporation
over the change in right title and interest in the
property, falling within the territorial limits of the
Corporation. Section 114A empowers the
Commissioner to review the order under Section
114, within a period of three years therefrom, if
satisfied that the transfer of title was got recorded
in the corporation register by fraud, mis-
representation or suppression of facts or by
furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete material.
6. The word "katha' is not found in the Act, but in
common parlance, over the years, is synonymous
with the certificate issued by the Corporation in
exercise of jurisidiction under Section 114 of the
Act, recording the name of the owner/occupier of
the immovable property, primarily responsible to
pay the Corporation taxes. It is also true that this
'katha', is important on account of its relevancy for
variety of purposes, be it securing a gas
connection, telephone line, driving licence, ration
card, mortgage by deposit of title deeds,
conveyance of immovable property, licence to erect
building, so on and so forth, though does not
confer right title or interest in the immovable
property.

14.7. By placing relaince on Jayamma it is submitted
that in the said decision, this Court has clearly
explained the scope of Sections 114 and 114A
of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.

1

2008 Supreme (Kar) 616

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



14.8.
This Court has observed that Section 114(12)
requires both the transferor and the transferee
to give notice in writing to the Commissioner
regarding any change in right, title or interest
in respect of property situated within the limits
of the Corporation. Section 114A empowers the
Commissioner to review such an order of
transfer, but only within a period of three
years, and that too only if it is found that the
transfer of title was recorded in the Corporation
register by reason of fraud, misrepresentation,
suppression of facts, or by furnishing false,
incorrect, or incomplete material.

14.9. It has been further clarified that though the
word “khata” is not expressly used in the Act, it
is commonly understood as the certificate
issued by the Corporation under Section 114,
recording the name of the owner or occupier of
the immovable property who is prmarily liable
to pay property tax. The Court has also
observed that while khata is relevant for
several practical purposes, such as obtaining
utilities, effecting conveyances, or creating a
mortgage, it does not by itself confer title to
the property.

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



14.10.
Relying on the above observations, the learned
counsel submits that the law is well settled that
the power of review under Section 114A can be
exercised only within three years and only in
cases involving fraud, misrepresentation, or
suppression. In the present case, there is
neither any allegation nor any finding of fraud
in the recording of the khata in favour of Smt.
Revathi in the year 2003. Therefore, the
cancellation of khata after nearly two decades
is clearly contrary to the principles laid down in
the aforesaid judgment and is liable to be set
aside.

14.11. The learned counsel submits that the power
under Section 114A can be exercised only
within a period of three years from the date of
recording the transfer of title, and that too only
if the authority is satisfied that such transfer
was recorded in the Corporation register on
account of fraud, misrepresentation,
suppression of facts, or by furnishing false,
incorrect, or incomplete material.

14.12. It is contended that none of these statutory
conditions is present in the case at hand. The

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


khata was entered in favour of Smt. Revathi, in
the year 2003, on the basis of a registered sale
deed. There is no allegation of fraud or
misrepresentation in the recording of the said
entry. In such circumstances, the jurisdiction
under Section 114A could not have been
invoked.

14.13. He relies on the decision in Sri.
Chowdeshwari Togajaveera Kshatriya
Sangha vs. The Joint Commissioner Bruhut
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Square
2
Bangalore and Ors . , more particularly para 5
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
5. In the facts of the instant case, there is no dispute
that way back on 05.07.1994 name of the appellant
Sangha was recorded in the khata of the property
and the same is continued as on today. In such
circumstance, if order passed by the learned Single
Judge directing the Joint Commissioner to undertake
an enquiry by providing reasonable opportunity to
both parties relating to the entry to be made in the
khata of the property is given effect to, it would
tantamount to clothing the Joint Commissioner with
the jurisdiction which is not vested in him under law.
Indeed, as per the provision contained in Section
114A of the Act, it is made explicit that Joint
Commissioner has no such power or jurisdiction to
examine the matter after a lapse of three years from
the date of recording of khata in the name of any

2

(2018) Supreme Karnataka 203

- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


person even if the allegation in the petition pertained
to misrepresentation, fraud etc...

14.14. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in
Sri. Chowdeshwari Togajaveera Kshatriya
Sangha, he submits that in the said decision,
this Court has clearly held that where a khata
entry had been made and continued for several
years, the Joint Commissioner cannot assume
jurisdiction to reopen or examine the matter
beyond the statutory period of three years
prescribed under Section 114A of the Act. The
Court observed that directing the Joint
Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in such
circumstances would amount to conferring
jurisdiction which the statute itself does not
vest in him.

14.15. The judgment specifically makes it clear that
even where allegations of fraud or
misrepresentation are raised, the power under
Section 114A cannot be exercised after the
expiry of three years from the date of recording
the khata.

14.16. By placing reliance on this decision, he seeks to
emphasise the scope and limitation of the
statutory power under Section 114A. She

- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


submits that the authority must act strictly
within the framework of the Act and cannot
assume powers beyond what is expressly
provided.

14.17. He accordingly contends that the statutory
scheme governing khata entries and their
review must be strictly adhered to, and any
action taken must fall within the bounds of
jurisdiction conferred by law.

14.18. He relies on the decision in Smt. R.M. Pushpa
vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
3
(BBMP), Bangalore and others , more
particularly para 2 thereof, which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
2. Undoubtedly, the review jurisdiction under
Section 114-A of the Act ought to be invoked
within three years from the date of the order
recording the transfer of title so as to reopen the
case and pass such orders with respect thereto as
the Commissioner thinks fit. In the instant case,
the recording of the transfer of title in favour of
the 4th respondent was on 1-4-2004 while the
petition for review was filed on 2-8-2007, beyond
the period of three years and therefore, the
petition was not maintainable and its rejection by
the order Annexure-F as communicated by the
letter Annexure-F1 cannot be found fault with.

3

2010 Supreme Karnataka 216

- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



14.19. Placing reliance on R.M. Pushpa he submits
that in the said judgment, this Court has
categorically held that the review jurisdiction
under Section 114-A of the Act must be
exercised within three years from the date of
the order recording the transfer of title. If a
petition seeking review is filed beyond the
prescribed period, it is not maintainable.

14.20. In that case, the transfer of title had been
recorded on 01.04.2004, whereas the petition
for review was filed on 02.08.2007, i.e., beyond
three years. This Court held that such a petition
was barred by limitation and upheld its
rejection. When a four-month delay was not
condoned, his submission is that in the present
case 8 years delay can never be condoned.

14.21. Relying on the above principle, he submits that
the statutory limitation under Section 114-A is
mandatory and cannot be relaxed. The power of
review is not an open-ended power and cannot
be exercised beyond the period prescribed by
the statute.

14.22. He therefore contends that the legal position is
settled that review of khata entries must strictly

- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


conform to the limitation period provided under
Section 114-A, and any action taken beyond
that period would be without jurisdiction.

14.23. He relies on the decision in Krishnappa and
Ors. vs. REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-
4
operative Societies Ltd., and Others , more
particularly para 18 and 19 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. Thus from perusal of Section 114-A of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, it is evident
that the power of review can be exercised subject to
fulfilment of following conditions:
i) The Commissioner arrives at the satisfaction either
suo moto or otherwise after such inquiry which he
considers necessary.
ii) Transfer of title under Section 114-A of the Act
was got recorded in the corporation register by
fraud, misrepresentation or suppression or by
furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete material.
iii) Power has to be exercised within a period of 3
years from the date of recording of transfer of the
title.
19. Now we may advert to the impugned Orders
dated 19.04.2010 and 05.04.2012 passed by the
Additional Commissioner in purported exercise of
powers under Section 114-A of the Act. From close
scrutiny of aforesaid orders it is evident that the
proceedings under Section 114-Ahave been initiated
in view of direction contained in the communication
issued by Principal Secretary to the Government as
well as Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
dated 16.02.2006 and 07.02.2007 respectively. The

4

(2021) SCC Online Karnataka 11863

- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


aforesaid orders have been passed on the ground
that the layout plan prepared by the Society has not
been approved by the competent authority and the
layout has been illegally developed as well as the
sites have been illegally allotted and conversion fee,
and betterment charges have not been paid. In other
words, no finding has been recorded that transfer of
title was either made by fraud, misrepresentation, or
suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect
or incomplete material. Thus, the condition
precedent for invocation of power under Section 114-
A of the Act has not been fulfilled. Admittedly, the
power under Section 114-A of the Act has not been
exercised within a period of 3 years from the date of
recording of transfer of title. Therefore, the orders
passed under Section 114-A of the Act cannot be
sustained in the eye of law, on this ground alone and
therefore, it is not necessary for us to examine other
grounds of challenge in the aforesaid orders. Thus,
the aforesaid orders have rightly been quashed by
the Learned Single Judge.

14.24. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court
in Krishnappa , he submits that in the said
decision, this Court has clearly identified the
conditions that must be satisfied before
invoking the power of review under Section
114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations
Act. The Court has held that:

14.24.1. The Commissioner must arrive at
satisfaction, either suo motu or
otherwise, after conducting such inquiry
as deemed necessary;

- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



14.24.2. The transfer of title must have been
recorded in the Corporation register by
fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of
facts, or by furnishing false, incorrect, or
incomplete material; and

14.24.3. The power must be exercised within
three years from the date of recording of
transfer of title.

14.25. He further submits that in paragraph 19 of the
said judgment, this Court examined orders
passed under Section 114-A and found that
there was no finding of fraud,
misrepresentation, or suppression. It was also
noted that the power had not been exercised
within three years from the date of recording of
transfer. On those grounds alone, the Court
held that the orders could not be sustained and
upheld their quashing.

14.26. Relying on this decision, he submits that the
exercise of power under Section 114-A is
strictly conditional and cannot be invoked
merely because there are irregularities in layout
approval or other planning violations. The
authority must record a clear finding of fraud or

- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


misrepresentation in the recording of the khata
entry, and the action must be taken within the
prescribed period of limitation.

14.27. He therefore contends that the statutory
requirements are mandatory in nature and any
order passed without satisfying these conditions
would be liable to be set aside.
14.28. It is further submitted that the objection filed
by respondent No.4 in the year 2011 was itself
beyond the period of limitation. The impugned
order having been passed only in the year
2023, nearly twenty years after the original
entry, is clearly without authority of law. The
statutory power of review having not been
exercised within the prescribed period, it stood
extinguished.
14.29. On this basis, it is submitted that the relief
sought in W.P. No.26870 of 2023, namely
quashing of the order cancelling the khata,
deserves to be granted.
14.30. It is further contended that once the
cancellation order is set aside, the electricity
connection cannot be disturbed. The action

- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


initiated by the BESCOM authorities is entirely
consequential to the impugned cancellation of
khata. Therefore, if the relief in W.P. No.26870
of 2023 is granted, the authorities would have
no justification to disconnect the electricity
supply, and consequently, the reliefs sought in
W.P. No.17679 of 2024 also deserve to be

allowed.

15. Ms.M.Sarvamangala, party in person, respondent
No.4 in both the matters submits that:

15.1. The sanctioned plan obtained by the landowner
and the builder permitted construction only up
to the ground floor, first floor and second floor.
The flat in question, namely Flat No. F3, is
situated on the third floor. According to her,
there was no sanctioned plan permitting the
construction of a third floor. Therefore, the
construction of Flat No. F3 is wholly illegal and
unauthorised. When there was no approved
plan for such construction, the question of
lawful construction or valid transfer of the said
flat would not arise.

15.2. She further submits that the developer, in order
to create documents and give an appearance of

- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


legality, executed a release deed dated
11.06.2003 in favour of his wife, Smt. Revathi.
Based on this inter se transaction between
husband and wife, the khata was entered in her
name. It is contended that the transaction was
not a genuine arms-length sale, but one
executed only for the purpose of creating
records. But for this document, the name of
Smt. Revathi would not have been entered in
the municipal records.

15.3. It is also submitted that the property was
mortgaged to the State Bank of India and
subsequently assigned to M/s J.M. Financial
Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited.
The said company brought the property to
auction, and Sri A.V. Naresh purchased it on
07.01.2020. However, prior to such auction,
the BBMP had issued a notice dated 10.03.2016
declaring that Flat No. F3 was an illegal and
unauthorised construction. The notice
specifically called upon J.M. Financial Asset
Reconstruction Company not to bring the flat to
auction. It was also indicated that a demolition
notice had already been issued in respect of the
said flat. According to her, this notice was even

- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


painted on the wall of the building, thereby
giving public notice of the illegality.

15.4. Despite such clear warning and knowledge of
the unauthorised nature of the construction, the
asset reconstruction company proceeded with
the auction and Sri A.V. Naresh purchased the
property. It is contended that both the
auctioneer and the auction purchaser had
sufficient notice of the violations and therefore
cannot claim any equitable interest in the
property.

15.5. She further submits that even while the
property stood in the name of Smt. Revathi,
respondent No.4 had initiated proceedings
seeking revocation or cancellation of the khata.
Sri A.V. Naresh was aware of these proceedings
and was also impleaded therein.

15.6. It is then submitted that having realised the
legal complications and the fact that the
construction was unauthorised, Sri A.V. Naresh
sold the property to the present petitioner. The
petitioner, according to her, also purchased the
property with full knowledge that the third floor
had no sanctioned plan and that the

- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


construction was illegal. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot claim to be a bona fide
purchaser without notice.

15.7. She submits that it is after considering all these
aspects, namely, absence of plan sanction for
the third floor, the earlier demolition notice, the
warning issued to the auctioning authority, and
the pendency of cancellation proceedings, that
the Joint Commissioner passed the order
cancelling the khata in respect of the
unauthorised construction.

15.8. She further points out that the petitioner had
earlier filed O.S. No. 880 of 2021 seeking a
permanent injunction against the official
respondents. The plaint in the said suit was
rejected. Against the said rejection, the
petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 205 of 2022, which
was subsequently withdrawn. According to her,
these proceedings show that the petitioner has
been attempting to delay the demolition and
prolong the matter through successive legal
actions.

15.9. She relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya vs. U.P.

- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


5
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. , more
particularly para 21 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
21. Therefore, in the larger public interest, we are
inclined to issue the following directions, in addition
to the directives issued by this Court in Re:
Directions in the matter of demolition of structures
(supra):
(i) While issuing the building planning permission,
an undertaking be obtained from the
builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect
that possession of the building will be entrusted
and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only
after obtaining completion/occupation certificate
from the authorities concerned.
(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be
displayed at the construction site, a copy of the
approved plan during the entire period of
construction and the authorities concerned shall
inspect the premises periodically and maintain a
record of such inspection in their official records.
(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being
satisfied that the building is constructed in
accordance with the building planning permission
given and there is no deviation in such construction
in any manner, the completion/occupation
certificate in respect of residential / commercial
building, be issued by the authority concerned to
the parties concerned, without causing undue delay.
If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in
accordance with the Act and the process of issuance
of completion/occupation certificate should be
deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out
are completely rectified.
(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as,
Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc.,
shall be given by the service provider / Board to the

5

2024 INSC 990

- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


buildings only after the production of the
completion/occupation certificate.
(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate,
deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning
permission brought to the notice of the authority
immediate steps be taken by the said authority
concerned, in accordance with law, against the
builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is
responsible for issuance of wrongful completion
/occupation certificate shall be proceeded
departmentally forthwith.
(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any
business/trade must be given by any authorities
including local bodies of States/Union Territories in
any unauthorised building irrespective of it being
residential or commercial building.
(vii) The development must be in conformity with
the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such
zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly
following the rules in place and in consideration of
the larger public interest and the impact on the
environment.
(viii) Whenever any request is made by the
respective authority under the planning
department/local body for co-operation from
another department to take action against any
unauthorised construction, the latter shall render
immediate assistance and co-operation and any
delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The
States/UT must also take disciplinary action against
the erring officials once it is brought to their
knowledge.
(ix) In the event of any application / appeal /
revision being filed by the owner or builder against
the non-issuance of completion certificate or for
regularisation of unauthorised construction or
rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be
disposed of by the authority concerned, including
the pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as
possible, in any event not later than 90 days as
statutorily provided.

- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier
directions issued by this Court and those being
passed today, they would have deterrent effect and
the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal /
Courts relating to house / building constructions
would come down drastically. Hence, necessary
instructions should be issued by all the State/UT
Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned
with a warning that all directions must be
scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be
viewed seriously, with departmental action being
initiated against the erring officials as per law.
(xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan
against any building as a security only after
verifying the completion/occupation certificate
issued to a building on production of the same by
the parties concerned.
(xii) The violation of any of the directions would
lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in
addition to the prosecution under the respective
laws.

15.10. By relying on Rajendra Kumar Barjatya , her
submission is that, insofar as illegal
constructions are concerned, no khata could be
issued nor could an electricity connection be
provided. She submits that the Hon’ble Apex
Court, in the said judgment, has issued detailed
and mandatory directions in the larger public
interest to curb unauthorised constructions and
to ensure strict compliance with building laws.
Placing emphasis on the principles laid down
therein, she contends as follows:

- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



15.10.1. Building possession should be handed
over only after obtaining a valid
completion or occupation certificate.

15.10.2. The approved plan must be displayed at
the construction site, and authorities
must carry out periodic inspections.

15.10.3. Completion or occupation certificate
must not be issued where deviations are
noticed, unless the same are fully
rectified.

15.10.4. Essential service connections such as
electricity, water, and sewerage must be
provided only upon production of a valid
completion or occupation certificate.

15.10.5. No trade licence or business permission
should be granted in unauthorised
constructions.

15.10.6. Authorities are required to take strict
action against deviations and against
erring officials who permit such
irregularities.

- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



15.10.7. Banks and financial institutions must
sanction loans only after verifying the
completion or occupation certificate.

15.10.8. Any violation of the directions would
invite contempt proceedings.

15.11. Relying on the above directions, she submits
that the construction of Flat No. F3 on the third
floor, without sanctioned plan approval, is an
unauthorised construction. In the absence of a
valid completion or occupation certificate for
the third floor, no municipal recognition by
issuance of a Khatha could have been granted
and no essential services could have been
continued.

15.12.
She therefore contends that the cancellation of
khata is in consonance with the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According
to her, municipal authorities are duty-bound to
prevent recognition of unauthorised
constructions and cannot perpetuate illegality
by continuing entries in municipal records.

15.13. On this basis, she submits that the petitioner
cannot claim any equitable or legal protection in

- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


respect of a construction which, according to
her, is admittedly unauthorised and contrary to
the sanctioned plan.

15.14. As regards Section 114, her submission is that
the construction being illegal and unauthorised,
BBMP can cancel such khata at any time, the
period of three years would not be applicable in
relation thereto.

16. Sri.B.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the BBMP
supports the case of respondent No.4 and justifies
the action taken by the municipal authorities by
submitting that:

16.1. The khata entry in respect of the subject
property is not legally sustainable since the
construction itself is illegal and unauthorised.
According to him, the sanctioned building plan
permitted construction only up to the ground
floor, first floor, and second floor. The flat in
question, namely Flat No. F3, is situated on the
third floor, for which no plan sanction was ever
granted. Therefore, the very construction of the
third floor is in clear violation of the sanctioned
plan and the applicable building regulations.

- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



16.2. He contends that when there is no valid plan
sanction permitting construction of a particular
portion of a building, such construction cannot
be recognised in law. In such circumstances,
the municipal authorities cannot continue to
maintain or recognise a khata entry in respect
of an unauthorised structure. The purpose of
maintaining municipal records is to reflect
lawful properties within the jurisdiction of the
Corporation. If an illegal construction is allowed
to remain reflected in the records, it would
amount to legitimising or perpetuating an
illegality.

16.3. He further submits that the power exercised by
the Joint Commissioner in cancelling the khata
was in furtherance of the statutory duty cast
upon the BBMP to regulate building activity and
ensure compliance with planning laws. The
cancellation of khata, according to him, does
not determine title to the property but merely
corrects municipal records so as to ensure that
unauthorised constructions are not accorded
official recognition.

- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



16.4. Learned counsel emphasises that municipal
authorities are under an obligation to act in
public interest and to prevent unauthorised
constructions from continuing with the support
of official documentation. If the construction is
contrary to the sanctioned plan, the
Corporation cannot be compelled to continue
the khata entry merely because it existed
earlier.

16.5.
He also submits that once the construction is
found to be illegal and unauthorised, the
petitioner cannot claim continuation of essential
services as a matter of right. Provision of
electricity and other civic amenities is subject to
compliance with building laws. Therefore, the
action initiated by the BESCOM authorities to
disconnect the electricity supply cannot be
termed arbitrary or unlawful. According to him,
the service provider is entitled to act upon the
communication and findings of the municipal
authority regarding the unauthorised nature of
the construction.

16.6. On these grounds, he submits that the order
passed by the Joint Commissioner cancelling

- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


the khata is lawful and justified. Consequently,
the challenge to the cancellation order is liable
to be rejected. He further submits that since
the electricity connection pertains to an
unauthorised construction, no interference is
called for with the action proposed by the
BESCOM authorities.

16.7. Accordingly, he prays that both the writ
petitions be dismissed.

17. Heard Sri.Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner in both matters. Ms.M.Sarvamangala,
party in person in both matters and
Sri.B.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the BBMP.
Perused papers.

18. In both matters, the points that would arise for
consideration are;
i. Whether the proceedings initiated under
Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 or Section 150 of
the BBMP Act for cancellation of khata
were barred by limitation, having been
commenced beyond three years from the
date of recording of transfer of title?
ii. Whether the jurisdictional requirements
for exercise of power under Section 114A
/ Section 150, namely fraud,

- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or
furnishing of false, incorrect or incomplete
material, were established in the present
case?
iii. Whether the Joint Commissioner had the
authority in law to cancel the khata entry
made in the year 2003 by passing the
impugned order dated 06.03.2023?
iv. Whether alleged illegality or unauthorised
nature of construction can justify
cancellation of khata independent of, or
beyond, the statutory limitation prescribed
under Section 114A / Section 150?
v. Whether the petitioner, having purchased
the property pursuant to SARFAESI
proceedings and under a registered sale
deed, is entitled to seek transfer of khata
in his favour?
vi. Whether the action initiated by the
BESCOM authorities in issuing notice dated
02.02.2024 proposing disconnection of
electricity supply is sustainable in law?
vii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the
reliefs sought in W.P. No. 26870/2023 and
W.P. No. 17679/2024?
viii. What order?

19. I answer the above points as follows:

20. Answer to Point No. (i): Whether the
proceedings initiated under Section 114A of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or
Section 150 of the BBMP Act for cancellation of
khata were barred by limitation, having been

- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


commenced beyond three years from the date
of recording of transfer of title?



20.1. Sri. Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the power of review
under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to
as the KMC Act) and the corresponding
provision under Section 150 of the BBMP Act
can be exercised only within a period of three
years from the date on which the transfer of
title is recorded in the Corporation register. He
emphasises that this limitation period is
mandatory in nature and not merely directory.

20.2. The learned counsel points out that in the
present case, the khata was transferred to the
name of Smt. Revathi on 30.07.2003. However,
respondent No.4 filed her objections only on
16.07.2011, which is nearly eight years after
the entry was made in the Corporation register.
Further, the impugned order cancelling the
khata was passed on 06.03.2023, which is
almost twenty years after the original transfer
was recorded. It is therefore contended that
both the initiation of proceedings and the

- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


passing of the cancellation order are clearly and
unambiguously barred by limitation.

20.3.
He further submits that once the prescribed
period of three years has expired, the statutory
authority loses its power to exercise the review
jurisdiction. The statute does not confer any
residual or inherent power upon the authority
to reopen a khata entry beyond the prescribed
period, regardless of the grounds urged.

20.4. In support of this contention, the learned
counsel relies upon the decision of a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Jayamma’s
case [supra], wherein this Court explained the
scope of Sections 114 and 114A of the KMC
Act. In the said decision, this Court has
observed that Section 114(12) requires both
the transferor and the transferee to give notice
in writing to the Commissioner regarding any
change in right, title or interest in respect of
property situated within the limits of the
Corporation. Section 114A empowers the
Commissioner to review such an order of
transfer, but only within a period of three
years, and only if it is found that the transfer of

- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


title was recorded in the Corporation register by
reason of fraud, misrepresentation, suppression
of facts, or by furnishing false, incorrect, or
incomplete material.

20.5. The learned counsel also relies upon the
decision in Sri. Chowdeshwari Togajaveera
Kshatriya Sangha’s case [supra]. In the said
decision, this Court has clearly held that where
a khata entry had been made and continued for
several years, the Joint Commissioner cannot
assume jurisdiction to reopen or examine the
matter beyond the statutory period of three
years prescribed under Section 114A of the Act.
The Court observed that directing the Joint
Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in such
circumstances would amount to conferring
jurisdiction which the statute itself does not
vest in him. The judgment specifically makes it
clear that even where allegations of fraud or
misrepresentation are raised, the power under
Section 114A cannot be exercised after the
expiry of three years from the date of recording
the khata.

- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



20.6.
Reliance is further placed on the decision in
Smt. R.M. Pushpa . In that case, the transfer
of title had been recorded on 01.04.2004,
whereas the petition for review was filed on
02.08.2007, that is, beyond three years. This
Court held that such a petition was barred by
limitation and upheld its rejection. The learned
counsel submits that when a four-month delay
was not condoned in the said case, in the
present case, where the delay is approximately
eight years (from the date of objection) and
twenty years (from the date of the cancellation
order), there can be no justification whatsoever
for the exercise of the review power.

20.7. The learned counsel further relies on the
decision in Krishnappa and others [supra]. In
the said decision, this Court identified the three
conditions that must be satisfied before
invoking the power of review under Section
114A: (i) the Commissioner must arrive at
satisfaction, either suo motu or otherwise, after
conducting such inquiry as deemed necessary;
(ii) the transfer of title must have been
recorded by fraud, misrepresentation,
suppression of facts, or by furnishing false,

- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


incorrect, or incomplete material; and (iii) the
power must be exercised within three years
from the date of recording of transfer of title. In
paragraph 19, this Court found that the orders
passed under Section 114A were unsustainable
because there was no finding of fraud and the
power had not been exercised within three
years.

20.8. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the legal position is well-settled that the power
of review under Section 114A / Section 150 is
strictly time-bound and cannot be exercised
beyond the period of three years prescribed by
the statute. In the present case, the
proceedings having been initiated and the
cancellation order having been passed far
beyond the prescribed period, the same are
clearly barred by limitation.

20.9.
Smt. L.M. Sarvamangala, respondent No.4
appearing as party-in-person, submits that the
construction of Flat No. F3 on the third floor is
wholly illegal and unauthorised, as the
sanctioned plan permitted construction only up

- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


to the ground floor, first floor, and second floor.
She contends that where the very construction
is illegal, the question of limitation does not
arise because an illegal act cannot acquire
legitimacy merely by the passage of time.

20.10. She relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya
[supra], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
issued comprehensive directions in the larger
public interest to curb unauthorised
constructions. According to her submission, the
said judgment mandates that essential service
connections such as electricity, water, and
sewerage must be provided only upon
production of a valid completion or occupation
certificate. She contends that since the third
floor was constructed without plan approval, no
completion certificate could have been issued,
and therefore, no khata ought to have been
granted in the first place.

20.11. Her submission is that the limitation period
prescribed under Section 114A / Section 150
would not apply where the khata itself was
granted in respect of an unauthorised

- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


construction. According to her, the municipal
authority is duty-bound to correct its records at
any point of time when it becomes aware that
an illegality has crept in, and the statutory
limitation cannot operate as a shield to protect
an entry that was void ab initio.

20.12. Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for
respondents No.1 to 3, supports the case of
respondent No.4 on this aspect. He submits
that the construction of the third floor is in
clear violation of the sanctioned plan and
therefore the khata entry in respect of the
same is not legally sustainable. He contends
that the municipal authorities are under a
statutory duty to ensure that only lawful
constructions are reflected in municipal records,
and therefore the limitation period under
Section 114A cannot operate as a bar to the
correction of records pertaining to an illegal
construction.

20.13. I have carefully considered the rival
submissions of the parties and perused the
material on record. The core question under
this Point is whether the proceedings initiated

- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


by the municipal authority for cancellation of
the khata entry were barred by limitation,
having been commenced far beyond the three-
year period prescribed under Section 114A of
the KMC Act / Section 150 of the BBMP Act.

20.14. At the outset, it is necessary to extract and
analyse the relevant statutory provisions.
Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 reads as follows:
114A. Review by the Commissioner .- Where the
Commissioner, either suo motu or otherwise, after
such enquiry as he considers necessary is satisfied
that any transfer of title under section 114 was got
recorded in the Corporation register by fraud,
misrepresentation, or suppression of facts or by
furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete material, he
may within a period of three years from the date of
such recording of transfer of title reopen the case
and pass such order with respect thereto as he

thinks fit:
Provided that no such order shall be made except
after giving the person likely to be affected thereby
a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

20.15. Similarly, Section 150 of the BBMP Act reads as
follows:
150. Review by the Chief Commissioner.-
Where the Chief Commissioner, either suomotu or
otherwise, after such enquiry as he considers
necessary is satisfied that any transfer of title under
section 149 was got recorded in the Corporation
register by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression
of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or

- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


incomplete material, he may within a period of three
years from the date of such recording of transfer of
title reopen the case and pass such order with

respect thereto as he thinks fit:
Provided that, no such order shall be made except
after giving the person likely to be affected thereby
a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

20.16. A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions
reveals that the power of review is hedged with
specific conditions and limitations. The following
essential ingredients emerge from a plain
reading of Section 114A / Section 150:

20.16.1. First, the Commissioner (or the Chief
Commissioner, as the case may be)
must arrive at a satisfaction, either suo
motu or on the basis of a complaint, that
the transfer of title was recorded in the
Corporation register by reason of fraud,
misrepresentation, or suppression of
facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or
incomplete material. This is the
jurisdictional prerequisite for the
exercise of the review power.

20.16.2. Second, before exercising the power, the
Commissioner must conduct such
enquiry as he considers necessary. This
implies that the satisfaction must be

- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


arrived at after due application of mind
and not on a mere ipse dixit.

20.16.3.
Third, and most critically for the present
purpose, the power of review must be
exercised within a period of three years
from the date of recording of the
transfer of title. This is a statutory
limitation expressly prescribed by the
Legislature.

20.16.4. Fourth, before passing any order, the
person likely to be affected must be
given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard. This is a mandatory requirement
of natural justice enshrined in the
proviso.

20.17. Now, applying the aforesaid statutory
framework to the facts of the present case, the
following undisputed facts emerge:


20.17.1. The khata was transferred in the name
of Smt. Revathi on 30.07.2003 pursuant
to a registered sale deed dated
11.06.2003.

- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



20.17.2.
Respondent No.4 filed her
objections/complaint before the BBMP on
16.07.2011, which is approximately
eight years after the recording of the
transfer.

20.17.3. The impugned order cancelling the khata
was passed by the Joint Commissioner
on 06.03.2023, which is approximately
twenty years after the original recording
of the transfer.

20.18. The statutory period of three years prescribed
under Section 114A / Section 150 is computed
from the date of recording of the transfer of
title, which in this case is 30.07.2003. The
three-year period therefore expired on
30.07.2006. The objection filed by respondent
No.4 on 16.07.2011 was itself filed
approximately five years after the expiry of the
limitation period. The impugned cancellation
order dated 06.03.2023 was passed
approximately seventeen years after the expiry
of the limitation period. The exceeding of the
statutory limitation is therefore manifest and
beyond any doubt.

- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



20.19.
The decision of this Court in Jayamma’s case
is directly applicable to the present case. In the
said decision, this Court has clearly explained
the scope of Sections 114 and 114A of the KMC
Act. This Court observed that Section 114A
empowers the Commissioner to review the
transfer of title recorded under Section 114, but
only within a period of three years from the
date of such recording, and only if the transfer
was got recorded by fraud, misrepresentation
or suppression of facts. The Court further
observed that while khata is relevant for
several practical purposes, it does not by itself
confer title to the property. The principle that
emerges from this decision is that the power of
review under Section 114A is strictly
circumscribed both in terms of the grounds on
which it can be exercised and the time within
which it must be exercised. In the present case,
the review was initiated and concluded far
beyond the three-year period, and therefore,
applying the principle laid down in Jayamma ,
the proceedings were without jurisdiction.

20.20. The decision in Sri. Chowdeshwari
Togajaveera Kshatriya Sangha [supra]

- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


further reinforces this position. In that case,
the khata had been recorded way back in 1994
and continued for several years. This Court held
that the Joint Commissioner could not assume
jurisdiction to reopen or examine the matter
beyond the statutory period of three years. The
Court specifically observed that directing the
Joint Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in
such circumstances would amount to clothing
him with a jurisdiction which is not vested in
him under law. The Court made it explicit that
the Joint Commissioner has no such power or
jurisdiction to examine the matter after a lapse
of three years from the date of recording of
khata, even if the allegations pertain to
misrepresentation or fraud. In the present
case, the cancellation has been effected twenty
years after the original recording, which is
manifestly beyond the statutory period.
Applying the ratio of Sri. Chowdeshwari
Togajaveera Kshatriya Sangha , the Joint
Commissioner clearly lacked jurisdiction to pass
the impugned order.

20.21. The decision in Smt. R.M. Pushpa is equally
applicable. In that case, the recording of the

- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


transfer of title was on 01.04.2004 and the
review petition was filed on 02.08.2007, that is,
approximately three years and four months
after the recording. This Court held that the
petition was not maintainable, having been filed
beyond the period of three years. If a delay of
merely four months beyond the statutory
period was held to be fatal in Smt. R.M.
Pushpa , the present case, where the delay
runs into approximately seventeen years
beyond the statutory period, admits of no
argument whatsoever. The principle laid down
in Smt. R.M. Pushpa is directly applicable and
conclusively establishes that the proceedings in
the present case are hopelessly barred by
limitation.

20.22. The decision in Krishnappa and Ors. [supra]
provides a comprehensive analysis of Section
114A and its conditions. In that case, this Court
identified the three essential conditions for the
exercise of the review power and found that the
orders passed under Section 114A were
unsustainable because there was no finding of
fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression, and
because the power had not been exercised

- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


within three years. The Court held that on the
ground of limitation alone, the orders could not
be sustained. The said principle squarely
applies to the facts of the present case.

20.23. As regards the submissions of respondent No.4
and Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan that the limitation
period should not apply because the
construction itself is illegal, this Court is unable
to accept such a contention. The Legislature, in
its wisdom, has specifically prescribed a
limitation period of three years for the exercise
of the review power under Section 114A /
Section 150. This limitation is an integral part
of the statutory scheme and is intended to
bring finality to administrative decisions
regarding khata entries. The Legislature has
not carved out any exception to the limitation
period based on the nature of the construction
or the illegality thereof. Had the Legislature
intended that the limitation period would not
apply in cases involving unauthorised
constructions, it would have expressly so
provided. The absence of any such exception in
the statute indicates that the limitation of three

- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


years is absolute and applies regardless of the
nature of the grounds urged.

20.24.
Furthermore, it must be noted that Section
114A / Section 150 deals specifically and
exclusively with the review of transfer of title
recorded in the Corporation register. The
grounds on which the review can be exercised
are limited to fraud, misrepresentation,
suppression of facts, or furnishing of false,
incorrect or incomplete material in the
recording of the transfer. The illegality or
unauthorised nature of a construction is not
one of the enumerated grounds under the
section. If the municipal authority wishes to
take action against an unauthorised
construction, there are separate and distinct
statutory provisions available for such purpose,
such as those relating to building regulations,
demolition, and penalties. Those provisions
operate in their own sphere and cannot be
made part of the review power under Section
114A / Section 150.

20.25. As regards the reliance placed by respondent
No.4 on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya [supra], while
the directions contained therein are
undoubtedly significant in the context of
regulation of unauthorised constructions, they
do not in any manner override or dilute the
statutory limitation prescribed under Section
114A / Section 150. The said judgment deals
with prospective directions to be followed by
authorities in the future for prevention and
regulation of unauthorised constructions. It
does not, and indeed could not, override the
express limitation prescribed by the Legislature
in a specific statutory provision. The directions
in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya operate in the
realm of regulation of building activity and
service connections, which is distinct from the
question of statutory limitation for review of
khata entries.

20.26. In the considered view of this Court, the
statutory limitation prescribed under Section
114A of the KMC Act and Section 150 of the
BBMP Act is mandatory in nature. The word
"may" used in the section in relation to the
three-year period is not to be read as
conferring a discretion on the authority to act

- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


beyond the prescribed period. Rather, the
phrase "he may within a period of three years"
qualifies and restricts the power itself. Once the
three-year period expires, the power ceases to
exist. This is a well-settled principle of
administrative law, namely, that where a
statute prescribes a time limit for the exercise
of a power, the power cannot be exercised
beyond that period.

20.27.
For all the aforesaid reasons, I answer
Point No. (i) by holding that the
proceedings initiated under Section 114A
/ Section 150 for cancellation of the khata
were clearly and unambiguously barred by
limitation, having been commenced far
beyond three years from the date of
recording of transfer of title on
30.07.2003.


21. Answer to Point No. (ii): Whether the
jurisdictional requirements for exercise of
power under Section 114A / Section 150,
namely fraud, misrepresentation, suppression
of facts, or furnishing of false, incorrect or
incomplete material, were established in the
present case?

- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



21.1.
Sri. Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the khata in favour of
Smt. Revathi was granted on the basis of a
valid registered sale deed dated 11.06.2003.
Property tax has been regularly paid. The
transfer was recorded in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under the Act. There was
no fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of
material facts in the recording of the transfer.

21.2.
He further submits that the impugned order of
cancellation does not record any finding of
fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression in
relation to the recording of the transfer of title.
The cancellation has been ordered on the
ground that the construction of the third floor is
unauthorised and in violation of the sanctioned
plan. However, the illegality of the construction,
even if assumed to be correct, is not one of the
grounds enumerated under Section 114A /
Section 150 for the exercise of the review
power.

21.3. Relying on the decision in Krishnappa’s case,
the learned counsel submits that in that case,
this Court examined the orders passed under

- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


Section 114A and found that no finding of
fraud, misrepresentation or suppression had
been recorded. The orders were based on the
ground that the layout plan had not been
approved and the sites had been illegally
allotted. This Court held that such grounds do
not satisfy the condition precedent for
invocation of power under Section 114A, and
on that ground alone, the orders were liable to
be set aside.

21.4. Smt. L.M. Sarvamangala, respondent No.4,
submits that the developer executed a release
deed dated 11.06.2003 in favour of his wife
Smt. Revathi, and that this was not a genuine
arms-length transaction but one executed only
for the purpose of creating records. She
contends that the very obtaining of khata on
the basis of such a document, in respect of a
floor that was never sanctioned, constitutes
misrepresentation and suppression of facts.

21.5. She further submits that since the construction
of the third floor was never sanctioned, the
builder/developer could not have validly
conveyed a flat on the third floor, and the

- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


obtaining of khata on the basis of such a deed
amounts to furnishing incorrect or incomplete
material to the Corporation.

21.6. Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for
respondents No.1 to 3, supports the case of
respondent No.4 and submits that the khata
entry in respect of the subject property is not
legally sustainable since the construction itself
is illegal and unauthorised. He contends that
maintaining a khata entry in respect of an
unauthorised structure would amount to
legitimising or perpetuating an illegality.

21.7.
I have carefully considered the submissions of
all parties on this Point. The question is
whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for the
exercise of the power of review under Section
114A / Section 150 were established in the
present case.

21.8. As already analysed under Point No. (i), the
jurisdictional prerequisites for the exercise of
the review power are: (a) the Commissioner
must be satisfied that the transfer of title was
got recorded in the Corporation register by
fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts,

- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


or by furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete
material; and (b) the power must be exercised
within three years. Both conditions are
cumulative and mandatory.

21.9. In the present case, the impugned order dated
06.03.2023 proceeds on the basis that the
construction of the third floor is unauthorised
and in violation of the sanctioned building plan.
The order does not record any finding that the
transfer of title in favour of Smt. Revathi was
got recorded in the Corporation register by
fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of
facts. The ground of cancellation is the illegality
of the construction, not any fraud or
misrepresentation in the process of recording
the transfer of title.

21.10. There is a fundamental distinction between the
two concepts. Section 114A / Section 150 is
concerned with the integrity of the process by
which the transfer of title was recorded in the
Corporation register. It is designed to provide a
remedy where the recording was obtained by
fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression. It is
not concerned with the legality or illegality of

- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


the underlying construction. The illegality of the
construction, if any, is to be dealt with under
the provisions relating to building regulation,
demolition, and other enforcement mechanisms
available under the Act. The review power
under Section 114A / Section 150 cannot be
used as a substitute for enforcement of building
regulations.

21.11. The decision in Krishnappa and Ors [supra] is
squarely applicable on this point. In that case,
this Court examined the orders passed under
Section 114A and found that the proceedings
had been initiated on the basis that the layout
plan had not been approved by the competent
authority and the layout had been illegally
developed. The Court held, in paragraph 19,
that no finding had been recorded that the
transfer of title was either made by fraud,
misrepresentation, or suppression of facts or by
furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete
material. The Court held that the condition
precedent for the invocation of power under
Section 114A had not been fulfilled. Similarly,
in the present case, the impugned order is
based on the ground of unauthorised

- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


construction and not on any finding of fraud or
misrepresentation in the recording of the
transfer. The ratio of Krishnappa is directly
applicable, and the jurisdictional prerequisite
stands unfulfilled.

21.12. As regards the submission of respondent No.4
that the execution of the release deed by the
developer in favour of his wife constituted
misrepresentation, this Court observes that the
said submission is in the nature of an ex post
facto justification. The impugned order itself
does not record any such finding. More
importantly, the recording of khata in the name
of Smt. Revathi was on the basis of a
registered instrument. The validity or
genuineness of a registered sale deed/release
deed cannot be adjudicated upon in
proceedings under Section 114A. That is a
matter for determination by a competent civil
court. The power under Section 114A is limited
to reviewing the administrative act of recording
the transfer in the Corporation register and
does not extend to adjudicating title disputes or
the validity of conveyance deeds.

- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



21.13.
The principle laid down in Jayamma’s case
[supra] is also relevant here. In the said
decision, this Court observed that khata does
not confer right, title or interest in the
immovable property. It is merely an
administrative record maintained by the
Corporation for the purpose of tax collection.
Correspondingly, the review of khata under
Section 114A cannot be used as a forum for
determining title disputes or adjudicating upon
the legality of constructions. The power is
limited to correcting entries that were obtained
by fraud or misrepresentation in the recording
process.

21.14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court
answers Point No. (ii) by holding that the
jurisdictional requirements for the
exercise of the power of review under
Section 114A / Section 150, namely fraud,
misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or
furnishing of false, incorrect or incomplete
material, were not established in the
present case. The impugned order is based
on the ground of unauthorised

- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


construction, which is not one of the
grounds enumerated under the section.

22. Answer to Point No. (iii): Whether the Joint
Commissioner had the authority in law to
cancel the khata entry made in the year 2003
by passing the impugned order dated
06.03.2023?

22.1. Sri. Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the impugned order
passed by the Joint Commissioner is without
jurisdiction and contrary to law. He contends
that the Joint Commissioner did not possess the
authority to cancel a khata entry that had been
in existence for nearly twenty years,
particularly when the statutory conditions for
the exercise of the review power under Section
114A / Section 150 were not satisfied.

22.2. Relying on the decision in Sri. Chowdeshwari
Togajaveera Kshatriya [supra], the learned
counsel submits that this Court has explicitly
held that the Joint Commissioner has no power
or jurisdiction to examine the matter after a
lapse of three years from the date of recording
of khata, even if the allegations pertain to
misrepresentation or fraud. He further submits
that exercising such power would amount to

- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


clothing the Joint Commissioner with a
jurisdiction which is not vested in him under
law.

22.3. Smt. L.M. Sarvamangala submits that the Joint
Commissioner was acting in the discharge of a
statutory duty to correct municipal records. She
contends that the power exercised was in
furtherance of the obligation to ensure that
municipal records do not reflect unauthorised
constructions.

22.4. Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan submits that the power
exercised by the Joint Commissioner in
cancelling the khata was in furtherance of the
statutory duty cast upon the BBMP to regulate
building activity and ensure compliance with
planning laws. He contends that the
cancellation does not determine title to the
property but merely corrects municipal records
so as to ensure that unauthorised constructions
are not accorded official recognition.

22.5. This Point is, in substance, a corollary of Points
No. (i) and (ii). The question whether the Joint
Commissioner had the authority to cancel the
khata entry depends upon whether the

- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


statutory conditions for the exercise of the
review power were satisfied.

22.6.
As already held under Point No. (i), the
proceedings were barred by limitation, having
been initiated and concluded far beyond the
three-year period prescribed under Section
114A /Section 150. As held under Point No.(ii),
the jurisdictional prerequisite of fraud,
misrepresentation, or suppression was not
established, and the impugned order was based
on the ground of unauthorised construction,
which is not one of the statutory grounds.

22.7.
The decision in Sri. Chowdeshwari
Togajaveera Kshatriya Sangha [supra] is
directly on point. In that case, this Court held
in clear and unambiguous terms that the Joint
Commissioner has no such power or jurisdiction
to examine the matter after a lapse of three
years from the date of recording of khata, even
if the allegations pertain to misrepresentation
or fraud. The Court observed that exercising
such power would amount to clothing the Joint
Commissioner with a jurisdiction which is not
vested in him under law. This principle applies

- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


with full force to the present case. The Joint
Commissioner, having passed the impugned
order approximately twenty years after the
recording of the khata, and without any finding
of fraud or misrepresentation, clearly acted
without jurisdiction.

22.8. Further, applying the principles laid down in
Krishnappa and Ors. [supra] where this Court
held that orders passed under Section 114A
without a finding of fraud and beyond the
limitation period could not be sustained in the
eye of law, the impugned order in the present
case is equally unsustainable. The Joint
Commissioner did not have the authority in law
to pass the impugned order dated 06.03.2023
cancelling the khata entry made in the year
2003.

22.9. The submissions of respondent No.4 and Sri.
B.S. Karthikeyan that the Joint Commissioner
was acting in discharge of a statutory duty to
correct records are not without force in
principle. However, the manner of exercising
such power must conform to the statutory
framework. If the municipal authority is of the

- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


view that a construction is unauthorised, the
remedy lies in taking action under the
appropriate provisions relating to building
regulations and demolition. The review power
under Section 114A / Section 150, which is a
specific and limited power, cannot be invoked
as a catch-all provision to correct all manner of
irregularities in municipal records.

22.10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court
answers point No. (iii) by holding that the
Joint Commissioner did not have the
authority in law to cancel the khata entry
made in the year 2003 by passing the
impugned order dated 06.03.2023. The
impugned order was passed without
jurisdiction, both on account of the expiry
of the limitation period and on account of
the non-fulfilment of the jurisdictional
prerequisites under Section 114A /
Section 150.

23. Answer to Point No. (iv): Whether alleged
illegality or unauthorised nature of construction
can justify cancellation of khata independent
of, or beyond, the statutory limitation
prescribed under Section 114A / Section 150?

- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



23.1.
Sri. Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the statutory limitation
prescribed under Section 114A / Section 150
cannot be bypassed on any ground, including
the alleged illegality of the construction. He
contends that the Legislature has prescribed a
specific time limit for the exercise of the review
power and has not carved out any exception for
cases involving unauthorised constructions. He
submits that if the municipal authority wishes
to take action against an unauthorised
construction, it must resort to the appropriate
statutory provisions relating to building
regulations and demolition, and not to the
review power under Section 114A / Section
150.

23.2. Smt.L.M.Sarvamangala submits that the
construction of the third floor is wholly illegal
and without any sanctioned plan. She contends
that illegality cannot be perpetuated merely
because a limitation period has expired. She
relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya [supra] to
submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
issued mandatory directions that no khata

- 68 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


should be issued and no essential services
should be provided in respect of unauthorised
constructions. She further submits that the
following directions are relevant:

23.2.1. Building possession should be handed
over only after obtaining a valid
completion or occupation certificate.

23.2.2. Essential service connections such as
electricity, water, and sewerage must be
provided only upon production of a valid
completion or occupation certificate.

23.2.3. No trade licence or business permission
should be granted in unauthorised
constructions.

23.2.4. Banks and financial institutions must
sanction loans only after verifying the
completion or occupation certificate.

23.3. On this basis, she contends that the
cancellation of khata is in consonance with the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, and that municipal authorities are duty-
bound to prevent recognition of unauthorised

- 69 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


constructions and cannot perpetuate illegality
by continuing entries in municipal records.

23.4.
Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan submits that when a
construction is found to be illegal and
unauthorised, the municipal authority is duty-
bound to ensure that such construction is not
accorded official recognition in the form of a
khata entry. He contends that the limitation
period under Section 114A cannot operate as a
shield to protect an illegal construction from
regulatory action.

23.5. This is the central and most contentious point
in the present case. The question is whether
the alleged illegality or unauthorised nature of
the construction can justify the cancellation of
khata independent of, or beyond, the statutory
limitation prescribed under Section 114A /
Section 150.

23.6. At the outset, it must be acknowledged that
unauthorised constructions are a serious
concern and that municipal authorities have a
duty to enforce building regulations. The
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rajendra Kumar Barjatya are a

- 70 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


manifestation of the highest judicial concern
about the menace of unauthorised
constructions. However, the question before
this Court is not whether unauthorised
constructions should be tolerated, but whether
the specific statutory power of review under
Section 114A / Section 150 can be invoked
beyond the prescribed limitation period on the
ground of unauthorised construction.

23.7.
The answer, in the considered opinion of this
Court, must be in the negative, for the
following reasons:

23.7.1.
First, Section 114A / Section 150 is a
specific statutory provision with a
defined scope, defined grounds, and a
defined limitation period. The scope is
limited to review of transfer of title
recorded in the Corporation register. The
grounds are limited to fraud,
misrepresentation, suppression of facts,
or furnishing of false, incorrect or
incomplete material. The limitation
period is three years from the date of
recording. The illegality of the

- 71 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


construction is not one of the
enumerated grounds, and there is no
provision for the extension or relaxation
of the limitation period.

23.7.2. Second, the statutory scheme of the
KMC Act and the BBMP Act provides
separate and distinct provisions for
dealing with unauthorised constructions.
These include provisions relating to
building plan approval, inspection,
demolition orders, penalties, and other
enforcement mechanisms. These
provisions operate in their own sphere
and are not dependent upon or
connected with the review power under
Section 114A / Section 150. The
existence of these separate remedies
confirms that the Legislature did not
intend Section 114A / Section 150 to be
used as a vehicle for enforcement of
building regulations.

23.7.3. Third, the principle that a limitation
period prescribed by statute cannot be
overridden on the ground of illegality of

- 72 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


the underlying transaction is well-
established. A limitation period serves
the important purpose of bringing finality
to administrative and legal proceedings.
It prevents the reopening of settled
matters at distant points of time, when
evidence may have been lost, witnesses
may have become unavailable, and
parties may have altered their positions
in reliance upon the existing state of
affairs. In the present case, the
petitioner purchased the property
through the SARFAESI process and
under a registered sale deed, relying
upon the existing municipal records.
Permitting the cancellation of khata
twenty years after its grant would cause
serious prejudice to parties who have
acted in good faith.

23.7.4. Fourth, if the interpretation urged by
respondent No.4 and the BBMP were to
be accepted, it would render the
limitation period in Section 114A /
Section 150 completely nugatory. Any
khata entry could be cancelled at any

- 73 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


time, however distant, merely by
alleging that the underlying construction
is unauthorised. This would defeat the
legislative intent behind prescribing a
specific limitation period and would
create uncertainty in municipal records,
thereby undermining the very purpose
for which khata entries are maintained.

23.7.5. Fifth, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya’s
case, while containing important and
mandatory directions for the regulation
of unauthorised constructions, must be
understood in its proper context. The
directions contained in paragraph 21 of
the said judgment are primarily
prospective in nature. They direct
authorities to ensure that, going
forward, service connections are
provided only upon production of
completion or occupation certificates,
and that banks verify such certificates
before sanctioning loans. These are
directions aimed at preventing future
irregularities and strengthening the

- 74 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


enforcement framework. They do not,
and indeed could not, retrospectively
override the statutory limitation period
prescribed by the Legislature for review
of khata entries under Section 114A /
Section 150.

23.7.6. Sixth, it must be borne in mind that the
khata was granted in the year 2003. At
that time, the directions contained in
Rajendra Kumar Barjatya’s case were
not in existence, having been issued only
in 2024. Holding that those directions
can operate retrospectively to justify a
cancellation of a khata that was lawfully
granted twenty years ago would be
contrary to fundamental principles of
fairness and the prospective application
of judicial pronouncements.

23.7.7. Having said the above, this Court must
clarify that the finding under this Point
does not in any manner condone or
approve unauthorised construction. If
the third floor of the building is indeed
an unauthorised construction, the

- 75 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


municipal authority is not without
remedy. It can take appropriate action
under the provisions relating to building
regulation, demolition, and penalties.
However, such action must be taken
under the appropriate statutory
provisions and in accordance with the
procedure prescribed therein. The review
power under Section 114A / Section 150,
which is a limited and time-bound
power, is not the appropriate tool for
such action.

23.7.8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court
answers point No. (iv) by holding
that the alleged illegality or
unauthorised nature of the
construction cannot justify the
cancellation of khata independent
of, or beyond, the statutory
limitation prescribed under Section
114A / Section 150.

24. Answer to Point No. (v): Whether the
petitioner, having purchased the property
pursuant to SARFAESI proceedings and under a
registered sale deed, is entitled to seek transfer
of khata in his favour?

- 76 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



24.1.
Sri. Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the petitioner
purchased the property from one Sri A.V.
Naresh, who in turn had acquired it through a
public auction conducted under the SARFAESI
Act. The petitioner holds a registered sale deed
dated 07.01.2020. Having acquired the
property through a lawful process and under a
registered conveyance, the petitioner is entitled
to seek transfer of khata in his name. He
submitted an application for the same on
10.05.2022, but instead of considering the
application, the BBMP proceeded to cancel the
khata.

24.2. The learned counsel further submits that the
khata had remained in existence for nearly
twenty years. During this period, the property
was mortgaged to a bank, brought to sale
under the SARFAESI Act, purchased in auction,
and thereafter conveyed to the petitioner. The
petitioner purchased the property bona fide,
relying upon the existing municipal records. At
this stage, the cancellation of the khata
adversely affects his rights and unsettles
transactions that have already taken place.

- 77 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



24.3.
Smt. L.M. Sarvamangala submits that prior to
the SARFAESI auction, the BBMP had issued a
notice dated 10.03.2016 declaring that Flat No.
F3 was an illegal and unauthorised
construction. The said notice specifically
warned the auctioning authority not to bring
the flat to auction and indicated that a
demolition notice had already been issued. She
contends that this notice was even painted on
the wall of the building, thereby giving public
notice of the illegality.

24.4. She further submits that despite such clear
warning, the asset reconstruction company
proceeded with the auction and Sri A.V. Naresh
purchased the property. According to her, both
the auctioneer and the auction purchaser had
sufficient notice of the violations. She submits
that Sri A.V. Naresh, having realised the legal
complications, sold the property to the present
petitioner, who also purchased with full
knowledge that the third floor had no
sanctioned plan. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser
without notice.

- 78 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



24.5.
She further points out that the petitioner had
earlier filed O.S. No. 880 of 2021 seeking a
permanent injunction against the official
respondents, the plaint in which was rejected.
Against the said rejection, the petitioner filed
C.R.P. No. 205 of 2022, which was
subsequently withdrawn. According to her,
these proceedings demonstrate that the
petitioner has been attempting to delay
proceedings through successive legal actions.

24.6. Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan submits that the
petitioner cannot claim continuation of essential
services as a matter of right in respect of an
unauthorised construction. He contends that
the provision of civic amenities is subject to
compliance with building laws and that the
petitioner is not entitled to seek transfer of
khata in respect of a construction that is illegal.

24.7. The question under this Point is whether the
petitioner, having purchased the property
through the SARFAESI process and under a
registered sale deed, is entitled to seek transfer
of khata in his favour.

- 79 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



24.8.
The undisputed factual position is as follows:
Smt. Revathi held khata in respect of the
subject property from 30.07.2003. She had
created a mortgage over the property in favour
of the State Bank of India. Upon default, the
property was classified as an NPA and
proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI
Act. After compliance with the statutory
procedure under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14
of the SARFAESI Act, the secured asset was
brought to sale by way of public auction. Sri
A.V. Naresh emerged as the highest bidder and
a sale certificate was issued in his favour. Sri
A.V. Naresh subsequently conveyed the
property to the present petitioner under a
registered sale deed dated 07.01.2020.

24.9. The petitioner thereafter submitted an
application on 10.05.2022 seeking the transfer
of the khata in his name. Instead of deciding
the said application on merits, the BBMP
proceeded to cancel the khata that stood in the
name of Smt. Revathi.

24.10. Now, the question of the petitioner’s
entitlement to seek transfer of khata must be

- 80 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


examined in light of the findings already

recorded under Points No. (i) to (iv).

24.11.
It follows from the aforesaid findings that the
impugned order of cancellation dated
06.03.2023 is without jurisdiction and is liable
to be set aside. The consequence of setting
aside the cancellation order is that the khata,
which had stood in the name of Smt. Revathi
since 30.07.2003, revives. If the khata is
treated as having continued without
interruption, the petitioner, who holds a
registered sale deed and has acquired the
property through a chain of transfers
originating from the SARFAESI proceedings, is

entitled to seek transfer of khata in his name.

24.12. As regards the submissions of respondent No.4
concerning the notice dated 10.03.2016 and
the question of whether the petitioner is a bona

fide purchaser, this Court observes as follows:

24.12.1. The question of bona fide purchase and
the effect of notice is relevant in the
context of title disputes, which are
beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.
This Court, in the exercise of its

- 81 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution, is concerned with the
legality and validity of the impugned
order, not with adjudication of title.
Whether the petitioner purchased the
property with or without knowledge of
the alleged illegality of the construction
is a question that may be relevant in
other proceedings, but it does not affect
the legal validity of the impugned order

under Section 114A / Section 150.

24.12.2. Furthermore, the SARFAESI proceedings
were conducted by a financial
institution/asset reconstruction company
under a statutory framework. The sale
under the SARFAESI Act and the
issuance of a sale certificate carry a
presumption of regularity. The petitioner
derives his title from a registered sale
deed. His entitlement to seek transfer of
khata arises from his ownership of the
property as evidenced by the registered
deed, and not from the question of
whether the construction is authorised or

unauthorised.

- 82 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



24.12.3.
As observed in the case of Jayamma ,
khata does not confer title to the
property. It is an administrative record
for the purpose of tax collection.
Conversely, the denial of khata does not
extinguish title. The petitioner’s title,
derived from a registered sale deed,
exists independently of the khata. He is
entitled to seek transfer of khata in his

name as the legal owner of the property.

24.12.4. As regards the filing and withdrawal of
O.S. No. 880 of 2021 and C.R.P. No. 205
of 2022, the same cannot be a ground
for denying the petitioner his legal
rights. The petitioner is entitled to
pursue such remedies as are available to
him in law, and the mere fact that earlier
proceedings were not successful does
not preclude him from seeking
appropriate relief in the present

proceedings.

24.12.5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court
answers Point No. (v) by holding
that the petitioner, having

- 83 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


purchased the property pursuant to
SARFAESI proceedings and under a
registered sale deed, is entitled to
seek transfer of khata in his favour.
The BBMP is directed to consider the
petitioner’s application for transfer

of khata in accordance with law.

25. Answer to Point No. (vi): Whether the action
initiated by the BESCOM authorities in issuing
notice dated 02.02.2024 proposing
disconnection of electricity supply is
sustainable in law?

25.1. Sri. Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the action initiated by
the BESCOM authorities to disconnect the
electricity supply is entirely consequential to
the impugned cancellation of khata by the
BBMP. He contends that if the cancellation
order is set aside, the authorities would have
no justification to disconnect the electricity
supply. He further submits that the notice was
issued in spite of being apprised of the
pendency of W.P. No. 26870/2023 and the
interim order of status quo passed by this
Court, which demonstrates arbitrariness on the
part of the BESCOM authorities.

- 84 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



25.2.
Smt. L.M. Sarvamangala submits that the
disconnection of electricity supply is justified in
light of the unauthorised nature of the
construction. She relies on the directions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajendra Kumar
Barjatya’s case, particularly Direction (iv),
which mandates that all necessary service
connections, including electricity, water supply,
and sewerage, shall be given by the service
provider only after the production of the
completion/occupation certificate. She contends
that since the third floor has no completion
certificate, the electricity connection cannot be
sustained.

25.3. Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan submits that once the
construction is found to be illegal and
unauthorised, the petitioner cannot claim
continuation of essential services as a matter of
right. He contends that the service provider is
entitled to act upon the communication and
findings of the municipal authority regarding
the unauthorised nature of the construction,
and that the disconnection of electricity supply
to an unauthorised construction is lawful and
justified.

- 85 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



25.4.
The question under this Point is whether the
notice dated 02.02.2024 issued by the BESCOM
authorities proposing disconnection of
electricity supply is sustainable in law.

25.5. The factual position is that the BESCOM
authorities issued the impugned notice
consequent upon the cancellation of the khata
by the BBMP. The said notice was issued in
spite of the fact that the petitioner had
informed the BESCOM authorities about the
pendency of W.P. No. 26870/2023 and the
interim order of status quo passed by this
Court.

25.6. The sustainability of the BESCOM notice must
be examined at two levels: first, whether the
notice is sustainable on its own legal basis; and
second, whether it is sustainable in light of the
findings already recorded in these proceedings.

25.7. On the first aspect, the notice dated
02.02.2024 appears to have been issued
primarily on the basis of the cancellation of the
khata by the BBMP. The BESCOM authorities
are not the authority competent to determine
the legality or illegality of constructions. Their

- 86 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


action of proposing disconnection was triggered
by and was consequential to the BBMP’s
cancellation order. Since this Court has already
held that the cancellation order dated
06.03.2023 is without jurisdiction and is liable
to be set aside, the foundation upon which the
BESCOM notice rests falls away. A
consequential action cannot survive when the
primary action upon which it is based is found
to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

25.8. On the second aspect, the electricity connection
in question was existing and operational at the
premises for a considerable period of time. The
meter bearing number C4EH34304 was a
subsisting connection. The disconnection of an
existing electricity connection has serious
consequences for the occupant, and any such
action must be based on a lawful and subsisting
order.

25.9.
As regards the reliance placed by respondent
No.4 on the directions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar
Barjatya, this Court has already observed
under Point No. (iv) that the said directions are

- 87 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


primarily prospective in nature. Direction (iv)
thereof states that service connections shall be
given to buildings only after the production of
the completion/occupation certificate. The key
word is "shall be given", which indicates a
prospective application. It applies to new
connections to be granted in future, not to
existing connections that have been operational
for years. The said direction cannot be read as
mandating the disconnection of existing
connections that were lawfully provided at the
time they were granted.

25.10. Furthermore, the notice was issued at a time
when the challenge to the khata cancellation
was pending before this Court and an interim
order of status quo was in operation. The
issuance of the notice in the face of the pending
proceedings and the interim order
demonstrates a lack of sensitivity on the part of
the BESCOM authorities to the judicial process.

25.11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court
answers point No. (vi) by holding that the
action initiated by the BESCOM authorities
in issuing the notice dated 02.02.2024

- 88 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


proposing disconnection of electricity
supply is not sustainable in law. The said
notice, being consequential to the khata
cancellation order which has been found to
be without jurisdiction, cannot be
sustained. The notice dated 02.02.2024 is
held to be not sustainable in law.

26. Answer to Point No. (vii): Whether the
petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in
W.P. No. 26870/2023 and W.P. No.
17679/2024?

26.1. Sri. Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that in W.P. No.
26870/2023, the petitioner seeks setting aside
of the order dated 06.03.2023 cancelling the
khata and a direction to transfer the khata in
his name. In W.P. No. 17679/2024, the
petitioner seeks quashing of the BESCOM notice
dated 02.02.2024 and restoration of electricity
supply. He submits that in light of the illegality
of the impugned orders, the petitioner is
entitled to both sets of reliefs.

26.2. Smt. L.M. Sarvamangala submits that the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief because
the construction is unauthorised and the

- 89 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


petitioner purchased the property with full
knowledge of the illegality. She prays that both
writ petitions be dismissed.

26.3. Sri. B.S. Karthikeyan submits that both writ
petitions be dismissed and the actions of the
municipal and electricity authorities be upheld.

26.4. The question of the petitioner’s entitlement to
reliefs must be answered in light of the findings

recorded under Points No. (i) to (vi).

26.5. In W.P. No. 26870/2023, the petitioner seeks
the setting aside of the impugned order dated
06.03.2023, cancelling the khata and a
direction to transfer the khata in his name. In
light of the findings under Points No. (i) to (v),
the impugned order is clearly without
jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The
petitioner, holding a registered sale deed, is
entitled to seek transfer of the khata. However,
this Court cannot directly order the transfer of
khata but can direct the competent authority to
consider and decide the petitioner’s application

in accordance with law.

- 90 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



26.6.
In W.P. No. 17679/2024, the petitioner seeks
the quashing of the BESCOM notice dated
02.02.2024 and restoration of the electricity
supply. In light of the finding under Point No.
(vi), the said notice is not sustainable in law
and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the
electricity supply to the subject premises is to

be restored/continued.

26.7. This Court must add an important caveat. The
findings in these proceedings relate exclusively
to the legality and validity of the impugned
order of cancellation of khata and the
consequential BESCOM notice. Nothing
contained in this judgment shall be construed
as a finding on the legality or otherwise of the
construction on the third floor. If the municipal
authority or any other competent authority is of
the view that the construction is unauthorised,
they are at liberty to take appropriate action
under the relevant statutory provisions,
including but not limited to provisions relating
to building regulations, demolition, and
penalties, in accordance with law and after
affording due opportunity to all affected parties.

- 91 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


The present judgment does not operate as a

bar to such proceedings.

26.8.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court
answers point no. (vii) by holding that the
petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought
in both W.P. No. 26870/2023 and W.P. No.
17679/2024, subject to the caveat

mentioned above.

27. Answer to Point No. (viii): What order?

27.1. In view of the findings and conclusions recorded
under Points No. (i) to (vii), this Court proceeds
to pass the following order.

27.2. In W.P. No. 26870/2023:

27.2.1. The writ petition is allowed.

27.2.2. The impugned order dated 06.03.2023
passed by the 2nd respondent (Joint
Commissioner, East, BBMP) in Case No.
3066/17-18, cancelling the khata in
respect of the subject property bearing
No. 118, Janhavhi Clusters, F-2, 2nd
Floor, 6th Main, P&T Colony,
Sanjayanagar, Bengaluru, is hereby
quashed and set aside, being an order
passed without jurisdiction and in
violation of the statutory provisions of
Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 and Section 150
of the BBMP Act.

- 92 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR



27.2.3.
The BBMP is directed to consider the
petitioner’s application dated 10.05.2022
seeking transfer of khata in his name, in
accordance with law and on its own
merits, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. While considering the
said application, the BBMP shall afford
due opportunity to all interested parties
and shall pass a speaking order.

27.3.
In W.P. No. 17679/2024:

27.3.1.
The writ petition is allowed.

27.3.2. The impugned notice dated 02.02.2024
bearing reference No.
AEE/C4/HBL/AET/1995/2023-24 issued
by the BESCOM authorities proposing
disconnection of electricity supply to the
meter bearing No. C4EH34304 in respect
of the subject property is hereby
quashed and set aside.

27.3.3. The BESCOM authorities are directed to
restore and/or continue the electricity
supply to the subject premises, if the
same has been disconnected, within a
period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.

27.4. It is clarified that nothing contained in this
judgment shall be construed as a finding on the
legality or otherwise of the construction on the
third floor of the building in question. If the
competent municipal or statutory authority is of
the view that the said construction is
unauthorised and in violation of the sanctioned
plan, they are at liberty to take appropriate

- 93 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12016
WP No. 17679 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26870 of 2023

HC-KAR


action under the relevant statutory provisions,
including but not limited to provisions relating
to building regulations, demolition, and
penalties, in accordance with law and after
affording due opportunity of hearing to all
affected parties.




SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE





List No.: 2 Sl No.: 77