Khata Split Alone Didn’t Vest 40-Foot Passage In BBMP, Karnataka HC Says; Parties May Take Use Dispute To Civil Court

The dispute concerned a 40 ft × 159 ft passage within land originally belonging to M. Venkataramaiah.

Following his 2004 gift deeds and will, BBMP created separate khatas for portions allotted to his children, but the passage was not included in any of them.

After the educational institution occupying the sons’ properties constructed a compound wall and gate across the passage, V. Kamala and her husband sought BBMP action to remove them.

BBMP issued notices in 2011, but later stated that the passage was private property and had not vested in it.

The institution had also obtained a 2012 civil-court decree permanently restraining BBMP from interfering with its possession of the suit properties.

In 2023, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed BBMP to remove the wall and gate, keep the passage free from encroachment, maintain it, and enter it in its property register.

The affected owners and BBMP appealed.

Section 265 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 provides for vesting in the corporation of public streets and specified appurtenances; it does not establish that a private passage automatically vests merely because it is excluded from separate khatas.

Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 addresses sanction for subdivision of plots or layout of a private street; the Court held that, where the requisite sanction had not been sought or obtained, the circumstances did not support deemed vesting of this passage in BBMP.

The judgment did not rely on any precedent as the basis for its decision.

The Division Bench found that the passage had been formed within private property and that there was no specific act or order vesting it in BBMP.

The passage’s omission from the separate khatas, and municipal actions such as khata bifurcation and sanctioning building plans, did not establish deemed vesting.

Nor had the parties obtained sanction under Section 17 of the Planning Act or relinquished the passage to BBMP.

The Court therefore rejected the Single Judge’s conclusion that those circumstances made the passage a BBMP road.

Given the absence of established vesting and the competing claims concerning use, the parties could pursue their disputes in appropriate civil proceedings.

The Single Judge’s findings regarding vesting of the passage in BBMP were vacated.

The Court left disputes about use of the passage to be agitated before the competent civil court; it did not uphold the direction that BBMP maintain and register the passage as a public street.