Khata cancellation beyond three years for alleged unauthorized construction is void for lack of statutory jurisdiction.

The Petitioner purchased a residential flat (Flat No. 3, 3rd Floor) in "Janhavhi Clusters," Bengaluru, via a registered sale deed dated 07.01.2020

The property had earlier been sold to Smt. Revathi in 2003, who obtained a khata (municipal tax record) on 30.07.2003

Smt. Revathi mortgaged the property to SBI; following default, the property was auctioned under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, where the Petitioner’s predecessor-in-title emerged as the successful bidder

Respondent No. 4 (a neighbor) filed objections in 2011, alleging the 3rd floor was an unauthorized construction lacking a sanctioned plan

On 06.03.2023—twenty years after the initial entry—the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) cancelled Smt. Revathi’s khata

Consequently, BESCOM issued a notice on 02.02.2024 to disconnect electricity supply

The Petitioner challenged both the khata cancellation and the disconnection notice.

Whether the proceedings for cancellation of khata were barred by the three-year limitation period prescribed under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act or Section 150 of the BBMP Act

Whether the alleged illegality of construction justifies the cancellation of a khata beyond the statutory limitation period

Whether BESCOM’s proposal to disconnect electricity based on the khata cancellation is sustainable

The Court applied Section 114A of the KMC Act, 1976 (and the equivalent Section 150 of the BBMP Act, 2020), which empowers the Commissioner to review a transfer of title only within three years from the date of recording, provided such entry was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts

It relied on Jayamma v. Assistant Revenue Officer (2008), establishing that khata is a tax record and does not confer title

Sri Chowdeshwari Togajaveera Kshatriya Sangha v. Joint Commissioner, BBMP (2018), which held that the three-year limitation is absolute even in cases of alleged fraud

The Court also addressed Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024) regarding electricity connections for unauthorized buildings

The Court reasoned that Section 114A is a specific, time-bound power.

Since the khata was recorded in 2003 and the cancellation occurred in 2023, the action was seventeen years late and thus "hopelessly barred by limitation"

The Court found that the jurisdictional prerequisite for review—a specific finding of fraud or misrepresentation in the recording process—was absent; the BBMP instead cancelled the entry based on "unauthorized construction," which is not a ground under Section 114A

It further held that while unauthorized construction is a serious regulatory issue, it must be addressed through building bye-law enforcement (demolition/penalties) rather than bypassing statutory limitation periods for tax records

Regarding the BESCOM notice, the Court determined it was "consequential"; since the underlying khata cancellation was void, the electricity disconnection notice lacked a legal foundation

It held that the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to cancel the 2003 khata in 2023 due to the expiry of the three-year limitation

The Court quashed the order dated 06.03.2023 and the BESCOM notice dated 02.02.2024

It directed the BBMP to consider the Petitioner’s application for transfer of khata within eight weeks

and ordered BESCOM to restore/continue electricity supply

The Court clarified that this judgment does not validate the construction itself, and municipal authorities remain free to initiate separate demolition or penalty proceedings for building violations in accordance with law