Karnataka High Court: While considering a “strange case” wherein it seemed that Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had issued Katha in respect of the same property to two different persons, and questions were raised on the veracity of the Katha certificate; a Single Bench of Suraj Govindraj, J.*, directed the Chief Commissioner, BBMP along with the Principal Secretary, E-governance, are directed to look into the matter and formulate a suitable mechanisms like Digi-locker to credentialize all documents issued by the BBMP so these situations can be avoided.
Background:
On 18-01-13, the petitioner, along with her parents purchased a site in Bengaluru. Prior to the said purchase, a Katha issued by the BBMP as regards the said property stood in the name of the vendors of the petitioner. Post the purchase the Katha was transferred in the name of the petitioner and her parents.
In 2021, the petitioner filed an application before BBMP where the petitioner sought deletion of her parent’s name in the Katha i.e. land records after her parents released their rights, title and interest in her favour. The application was rejected by BBMP due to the objections filed by Respondent 3 and Respondent 4 wherein the respondents claimed their right, title and interest in the same property. In regard thereto, the respondents produced Katha issued by the BBMP along with documents evidencing the payments.
The petitioner submitted that it is not a new Katha which is being sought for, whereas it is only for the deletion of the name of the parents. It was further submitted that the petitioner produced snapshots of the Property Tax Portal of BBMP, which reflects the name of the petitioner and her parents upon entering the PID (property identification) number and can also be verified by the court from the said portal.
The petitioner contended that once the release deed has been executed, it is the duty of the respondent corporation to carry out necessary changes in Katha and not reject it merely by the objections filed by Respondents 3 and 4.
Per contra, the BBMP upon instructions by the Assistant Revenue Officer (ARO), contended that the Katha certificate and assessment extracts produced by the petitioner were not available on their records. Thus, there is no Katha in the name of the petitioner and her parents requiring any changes to be made and the certificate presented by the petitioner is fabricated.
On the other hand, Respondents 3 and 4 did not submit any objection to the application made by the petitioner. They further added that Corporation suo-motu have issued endorsement on basis of the available documents in the files. However, they submitted that they are the Kathedars as per records of the Corporation. Since the Katha reflected their names with the date of purchase i.e. 22-04-1999., thus, the application of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Court’s Assessment:
While perusing the “strange matter”, tthe Court observed that the BBMP seems to have issued Katha of the same property to two different persons, if the submission of the corporation is accepted.
The Court further examined the BBMP property tax portal and found initials of the petitioner and her parents upon entering the PID no.. On the other hand, no entry was available on the said portal insofar upon entering PID no. submitted by Respondents 3 and 4. The Court opined that since the petitioner applied only for a change of Katha by deleting the names of the parents, hence it is not a fresh Katha that is being sought for or a transfer of Katha.
The Court further opined, that upon availability of all the necessary information concerning the petitioner, it was not permissible for the ARO to give instruction that no records are available and/or the document produced are fabricated and false. The Court directed the Chief Commissioner to take appropriate actions against the ARO for misleading the counsels and the Court.
Considering the instant case, the Court pointed out that this is not a stray case where a Katha certificate issued by the BBMP has been objected to on the ground that the same is not genuine, “any allegation regarding the particular document is not genuine and is therefore fabricated has serious connotations in both civil and criminal law.”. The Court further pointed out that Katha certificate issued on a piece of paper without any verification possibility has resulted in such a scenario which had compelled the Court to visit the BBMP Portal and verify the Katha certificate issued to the petitioner.
The Court laid emphasis on rapid digitisation and pointed out that when systems like digi-locker have been enabled which would give access to verification of identity of a person by uploading Aadhar Card and other identity documents, hence its high time that the BBMP implements a system like digi-locker for digitising documents in order to credentialize the data so that the authenticity can be verified by scanning the QR code printed with it and the documents could also be accessed and uploaded by the owner when required.
With the afore-stated assessment, the Court thus allowed the petition directing ARO to consider the application of the petitioner and carry out necessary changes in the Katha.
[Sharmada B.K. v. Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 147, Order dated on 23-11-23]
*Order by Justice Suraj Govindraj
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner– Uday Holla, Senior Advocate, Jaykumar N D., Advocate
For Respondent– Jagdeeswara N R ,Advocate, M. S. Nagaraja Advocate
