Statutory three-year limitation for reviewing khata entries under Section 114A is mandatory and absolute.

The Petitioner purchased a residential flat (Flat No. F3, 3rd Floor) via a registered sale deed on 07.01.2020.

The property had originally been conveyed to a prior owner, Smt. Revathi, in 2003, and the BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) issued a khata in her name on 30.07.2003.

Smt. Revathi mortgaged the property; following default, it was auctioned under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, where the Petitioner’s predecessor-in-title purchased it.

Respondent No. 4 (a neighbor) filed objections in 2011, alleging the 3rd floor was an unauthorized construction without a sanctioned plan.

In 2022, the Petitioner applied for a khata transfer.

Instead, the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, passed an order on 06.03.2023 cancelling the 2003 khata.

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

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

The Court applied Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act, 1976 and Section 150 of the BBMP Act, 2020, which empower the Commissioner to review a khata entry only within three years from the date of recording, provided the entry was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts.

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

Further, it applied Sri Chowdeshwari Togajaveera Kshatriya Sangha v. Joint Commissioner, BBMP (2018) and Krishnappa v. REMCO (BHEL) HBCS (2021), both affirming that the three-year limitation is mandatory and the power of review cannot be exercised thereafter, even on allegations of fraud.

The Court reasoned that the power of review is strictly time-bound.

Since the original khata was recorded on 30.07.2003, the three-year limitation period expired on 30.07.2006; therefore, the objection filed in 2011 and the cancellation order passed in 2023 (20 years later) were hopelessly barred.

The Court found that the BBMP failed to record any finding of "fraud" or "misrepresentation" regarding the recording of the transfer, which is the only jurisdictional ground for review under Section 114A.

It held that "unauthorized construction" is not a statutory ground for khata cancellation under these specific review provisions; rather, such illegalities must be addressed through separate enforcement/demolition powers under the Act.

Regarding the electricity disconnection, the Court noted that the BESCOM notice was merely consequential to the illegal khata cancellation and thus could not survive independently.

It further clarified that the Supreme Court's directions in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024) regarding service connections are prospective and do not mandate the disconnection of long-standing existing utilities.

It held that the khata cancellation order was passed without jurisdiction as it exceeded the mandatory three-year limitation and lacked findings of fraud.

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

It directed the BBMP to consider the Petitioner’s application for khata transfer within eight weeks and directed BESCOM to restore/continue electricity supply.

However, it clarified that the municipal authorities remain at liberty to initiate separate proceedings against the "unauthorized construction" in accordance with law.