M/S RAGHAVA REDDY AND ASSOCIATES V. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST ZONE)

WP/6201/2015

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates, a partnership firm, along with its partners, challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP, which transferred the 'Khata' of certain properties back to the original vendors, Smt. Ramabai Krishna and Dr. N.S. Jayanthi. This order was based on a review petition under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, following directions from a previous court ruling. The petitioners argued that the sale deeds under which they acquired the properties were valid and had been executed after due legal process, including payment of consideration and obtaining necessary tax clearances. The respondents, including the 3rd respondent Mr. Manish Rao, contested the validity of these sale deeds, leading to the restoration of 'Khata' in favor of the original vendors. The court's decision to quash the BBMP's order was based on the principle that the title and rights over the property should be adjudicated by civil courts, not administrative bodies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 738221 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jayamma vs. The Asst.Revenue Officer & Others, M/s.Paramount Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vs. BBMP
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Income Tax Act, 1961, Indian Contract Act, 1972
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V KUMAR; C K NANDAKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: G SHASTRY
• Keywords: Civil suits; General Power of Attorney; Sale deeds; Khata transfer; Void transactions
• Section: 114(A); 202; 269U

Judgement Text

" 1/26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION Nos.6201-6204/2015 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. RAGHAVA REDDY AND ASSOCIATES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS 1) SRI K. RAGHAVA REDDY 2) SRI K.R. JAYACHANDRA REDDY HAVING IT’S OFFICE AT G.F.1 BLOCK, NO.1, ROYAL RESIDENCY APARTMENTS, NO.8, BRUNTON ROAD BANGALORE – 560025. 2. SRI K. RAGHAVA REDDY S/O LATE SRI K. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 3. SRI K. R. KUMARA REDDY S/O SRI K. RAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 4. SRI K.R. JAYACHANDRA REDDY S/O SRI K. RAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.424, 12TH MAIN ROAD R.M.V EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 560080. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.,) R Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 2/26 AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST ZONE) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560002. 2. ADDITIONAL REVENUE OFFICER VASANTH NAGARA SUB DIVISION THIMMAIAH ROAD (QUEEN\"S ROAD) BANGALORE 560001. 3. SRI. MANISH RAO S/O SRI DR. N.S. BHARATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS A.R. HEADQUARTERS RESIDING AT, NO.102, BLOCK 2 ROYAL RESIDENCY, NO.8, BRUNTON ROAD BANGALORE 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. V. MOHAN KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. C. K. NANDAKUMAR, ADV., FOR C/R3) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.25.9.2014, PASSED BY THE R-1, ENCLOSED HEREIN AS ANNX-C BY ISSUING A WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI; QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DT.6.11.2014, PASSED BY R-2, ENCLOSED HEREIN AS ANNX-D BY ISSUING A WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI & GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER DT.25.9.2014, PASSED BY THE R-1, ENCLOSED HEREIN AS ANNX-C AND THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DT.6.11.2014, PASSED BY R-2, ENCLOSED HEREIN AS ANNX-D. THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 3/26 JUDGMENT Mr. G. Balakrishna Shastry, Adv., for Petitioners Mr. K.V. Mohan Kumar, Adv., for R1 & R2 Mr. C.K. Nandakumar, Adv., for C/R3 1. The petitioner-M/s.Raghava Reddy & Associates, a partnership firm comprising of two partners namely, Mr.K.Raghava Reddy & Mr.K.R.Jayachandra Reddy along with three other petitioners, the partners in personal capacity viz., Mr.K.Raghava Reddy, Mr.K.R.Jayachandra Reddy and Mr.K.R.Kumara Reddy, Bangalore, have filed these petitions before this Court on 27.02.2015 challenging the impugned order dated 25.09.2014 passed by the 1st Respondent-Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP, Bangalore, in a Review Petition under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, by which, the said Joint Commissioner transferred the ‘Khata’ already entered in the name of the present petitioners and restored the same in the names of Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 4/26 Smt.Ramabai Krishna and Dr.N.S.Jayanthi, the vendors of the property to these petitioners. 2. The said impugned order as a matter of fact was passed in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.12.2012 in W.P.No.38099/2011. The learned Single Judge of this Court directed the appropriate authority namely, the 1st Respondent-Joint Commissioner to decide the Review Petition about the khata entries, after hearing the petitioner as well as Respondents 3 to 6, who are the present petitioners before this Court. 3. The operative portion of the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner is quoted below for ready reference:- “The said suit appears to be pending and further the Interim order passed by the Civil Court though does not effect the transfer of ‘Katha’, still the Sale deeds executed by the Respondents as GPA holders of the owners of Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 5/26 the property is illegal and void in the eye of Law. The title of the property and question of cancellation of registered Sale deeds is still pending before the Civil Court and therefore it is necessary to revoke the ‘Katha’ made in the name of the Respondents and restored in the name of Smt. Ramabai Krishna Rao and Dr. N.K. Jayanthi in whose names ‘Katha’ stands earlier to the date of transfer of ‘Katha’ in the name of Raghava Reddy and Associates. Therefore the following O R D E R I, Sri. B.E. Govindaraju, Joint Commissioner (East Zone) Delegatee of the Commissioner, BBMP having perused the records available in the file and the objections and counter objections filed by both the parties have come to the conclusion of Katha transferred of property No.8/1 and 8/2 effected as per endorsement dated 06-02-2008 vide No.DA/S/W78KTR53/2007-08 and DA(S)W78 KTR54/2007-08 are hereby revoked and Katha stood in the name of earlier owners Smt. Ramabai Krishna Rao and Dr. N.K. Jayanthi respectively is restored. Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 6/26 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.G.Bala Krishna Shastry, assailing the said order has submitted before the Court that the 3rd Respondent Mr.Manish Rao S/o Dr.N.S.Jayanthi Rao and Grand Son of Smt.Ramabai has filed two civil suits, namely O.S.No.5905/2009 & O.S.No.5906/2009, which are pending in the Trial Court even now and in which, an interim injunction order was passed by the learned trial Court on 01.10.2012 that the present petitioners who are the defendants in the said civil suits are restrained from alienating the suit property further. He submitted that under the General Power of Attorney executed by these two ladies Smt.Rama Bai and Smt.N.S.Jayanthi, the two Sale Deeds in favour of the present petitioners came to be executed on 28.09.2007 and the copies of which are placed on record along with the petitions and which are the subject matter of challenge in the said two civil suits filed by the Respondent-Mr.Manish Rao. Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 7/26 The learned counsel therefore urged that the Respondent-Joint Commissioner, arriving at a finding that the Sale Deeds were executed by any fraud or misrepresentation and treating the same as void, could not have cancelled the ‘Khata’ entries made in favour of the present petitioners in the year 2008 itself, soon after the Sale Deeds were executed in 2007 and restore the ‘Khata’ in the name of the original vendors. He further drew the attention of the Court towards Annexure-F, the Office Notings produced by the petitioners that the ‘Khata’ was entered in the name of the present petitioners on the basis of these registered Sale Deeds after due consideration of the relevant facts including the fact that these two ladies had expired, much before the execution of the Sale Deeds in favour of the present petitioners but the ‘Khata’ was so entered in the name of the petitioners after obtaining due legal opinion in the matter and there was nothing illegal in doing so. Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 8/26 He also submitted that most part of the consideration for these sale of the property in question was paid by cheques by the petitioners and due Income Tax Clearance Certificate was also obtained by these Vendors under Section 269U of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He further submitted that mere challenge to the said Sale Deeds and General Power of Attorney, which is not sustainable in law, does not entitle the Joint Commissioner of BBMP to form a view and give a finding that the Sale Deeds in question should be treated as void and thus restore the ‘Khata’ in favour of the original Vendors Smt.Ramabai and Dr.N.S.Jayanthi. He has also relied upon the provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972, which stipulates that where the agent (Power of Attorney) has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 9/26 express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. G. Balakrishna Shastry has contended that there was no justification for the Respondent-Joint Commissioner to cancel the ‘Khata’ made in favour of the present petitioners on the basis of these registered Sale Deeds, though impugned in the two civil suits filed by the 3rd Respondent-Mr.Manish Rao during the pendency of these Civil Suits and restore the ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the original Vendors who had died long ago. He also submitted that the 3rd Respondent- Mr.Manish Rao had also given his consent for change of ‘Khata’ in favour of the present petitioners in the year 2008 vide Annexure-E, a letter dated 15.03.2004, which was also considered by the then Commissioner while making ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the present Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 10/26 petitioners and therefore, he is estopped in contending otherwise. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Nanda Kumar learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent has vehemently opposed these submissions and has questioned the validity of these Sale Deeds with great vehemence and submitted that the execution of Sale Deeds in question by the petitioners who were the General Power of Attorney holders of these two ladies in favour of themselves, rendered these Sale Deeds void and he has also disputed the so called consent given by the 3rd Respondent-Mr.Manish Rao for change of ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the present petitioners. Mr.Nanda Kumar has further submitted that on the basis of the ‘Khata’ entries made in favour of the present petitioners in the year 2008, the property in question, which are vacant sites are being utilized for their own benefits by the petitioners, by allowing the use of same for putting up the Advertisement Hoardings Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 11/26 and the petitioners are earning huge revenue out of the said property and the restoration of the ‘Khata’ in favour of the original Vendors, subject to the decision of these suits, will maintain the equities in favour of the parties and will not permit the petitioners to use the said property or land while the said suits are pending. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jayamma vs. The Asst.Revenue Officer & Others (ILR 2009 KAR 458) and has submitted that despite pendency of the civil suits, the learned single Judge of this Court upheld the change of ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the plaintiffs who challenged the Gift Deeds in favour of the defendants and the Court upheld the restoration of the ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the plaintiffs subject to the decision of the said suits. 6. The learned counsel for the Respondents-BBMP supports the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent-Joint Commissioner, BBMP. Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 12/26 7. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the records and the judgments cited at the bar. 8. This Court also had an occasion to consider the similar controversy recently in W.P.No.38932/2016 (M/s.Paramount Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vs. BBMP), decided on 30/08/2017, in which, an auction purchaser under the legal proceedings undertaken by the Punjab National Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002, gave the highest bid and obtained the Sale Certificate in his favour and applied for ‘Khata’ entries in his favour, which was objected to by the 5th Respondent therein, who claimed his rights over the said property under an ‘Agreement to Sell’ executed in his favour by the original Vendor, who was the borrower and defaulter under the SARFAESI Act and this Court negatived the claim of the 5th Respondent and while directing the ‘Khata’ entries were to be made in favour of the petitioner-auction purchaser, held in paragraph-7 that the Joint Commissioner of BBMP has no jurisdiction to enter into Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 13/26 the question of tile of property of private parties and decide the same and such powers are vested only in the competent Civil Courts. The relevant paragraphs 7 to 11 of the said decision are quoted below for ready reference:- “7. Firstly, the said Authority – Joint Commissioner of BBMP has no jurisdiction to enter into the question of title of the property of private parties and decide it. He does not have any power of Civil Court to determine the validity of the title or otherwise of any party. Just a prima-facie satisfaction upon production of Title document is enough for him to record the khata entry in favour of the person who holds such title. The Sale Certificate under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, prima-facie, established that the present petitioner was a bona fide auction purchaser under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and it was a proof sufficient for the said Respondent to record the ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the petitioner. He could not have adjudicated the question of title himself. Even if he could advise the parties to get the document of title cleared by Civil Court, he could not been refused to record Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 14/26 the ‘Khata’ entry in favour of the petitioner who produced the Sale Certificate in legal proceedings under SARFAESI Act. The said Sale Certificate was definitely a much superior and better evidence of title over the Agreement of Sale held by the 5th Respondent, who never obtained any decree in his favour, on the basis of such Agreement to perfect his title over the subject property. 8. The objections of 5th Respondent claiming under the alleged Agreement of Sale in his favour vide Annexure-R7 executed by Mr.A.Srinath in favour of him, did not entitle him to raise any such objection at this stage before the Joint Commissioner in this regard. The said person has not at all fortified his rights by instituting a suit for specific performance nor he has perfected his title of the said property, before raising any objection against the recording of the ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the present petitioner who is absolutely a bona fide auction purchaser under the legal proceedings and the special enactment known as “SARFAESI Act” whereby, the equitable mortgagee Ms.Poonal Lakhani has mortgaged the said property in favour of Punjab National Bank and the possession of the said property was taken over and put to an auction Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 15/26 under the provisions of the said Act. The conveyance of the said title under the provisions of the said Act to the bona fide auction purchaser confers title on such person free from any encumbrance. 9. If any third party wants to raise an objection against that, he/she has to approach the competent Civil Court and establishing his/her own right over such property there upon only, he can raise any objection before the concerned Authorities of the BBMP or any public bodies who are responsible of recording of the ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the auction purchaser like the present petitioner. 10. So long as such effective civil remedy is not availed by the 5th Respondent, who is nothing but a busy body in the matter and therefore, his objections could not carry any weight before the Respondent-Joint Commissioner. The said Joint Commissioner therefore was unnecessarily misled by the objections raised by the 5th Respondent and passed the impugned order which is wholly without jurisdiction. The said order therefore deserves to be quashed. The same is accordingly quashed. The 2nd Respondent- Joint Commissioner is directed to effect the Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 16/26 ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 11. The petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- each to be paid by the said 2nd Respondent- Joint Commissioner, Raja Rajeshwari Nagar Zone, BBMP, Bangalore and the Respondent No.5 Mr. G. Venkatarathnam to the present petitioner within three months from today”. 9. Even in the previous judgment cited by the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent in the case of Jayamma vs. Asst. Revenue Officer, the learned Single Judge of this Court had clearly held that in view of the pendency of the civil litigation, restoring the ‘Khata’ in the name of the petitioner would not be conducive, as the probability of the petitioner doing away with the property is imminent and since the challenge with regard to the Gift Deeds in question was pending before the Civil Court, where the petitioner had instituted a suit to declare title of the immovable property pursuant to the Partition Deed and for Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 17/26 cancellation of the Gift Deed, once the Civil Court adjudicated upon such dispute, the truth or otherwise of the execution of the documents by the petitioner would come to the fore and therefore, the execution of such Gift Deed by the petitioner cannot disentitle the petitioner in law to a restoration of the ‘Khata’ of the said property in his favour. Such transfer of ‘Khata’ without notice to the petitioner is non-est. The relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision are also quoted below for ready reference:- “13. Learned counsel further points out to the Statement of objections to contend that the petitioner executed a Gift Deed on 29-06-2004 in terms of Annexure-F1, much prior to the application Annexure-J for redoing the ‘katha’ into her name and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by restoring the ‘katha’ into the name of the petitioner. In addition, the learned counsel submits that the parties are presently before the Civil Court in O.S.No.4455/1998 instituted by the 3rd respondent for a declaration of right, title and interest over the property in question and for cancellation of the Gift Deed. Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 18/26 According to the learned counsel, even assuming that the transfer of ‘katha’ was not proper, nevertheless, in the light of the pendency of the civil litigation, restoring the ‘katha’ into the name of the petitioner would not be conducive as the probability of the petitioner doing away with the property is imminent. 14. From the nature of objections put forth by the 3rd respondent what is discernable is that the 3rd respondent alleges that the petitioner executed a Gift Deed Annexure-“R1”, in favour of her husband preceded by an unregistered Partition Deed Annexure-“H” under which the property fell to the share of the 3rd respondent. The fact as to whether the petitioner did execute the Gift Deed or the Partition Deed are matters which cannot be conveniently adjudicated in this writ petition. Moreover it is not the case of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner has issued notice under Section 114 of the Act for transfer of ‘katha’ in favour of the Donee under the Gift Deed. Even according to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the matter is at large before the Civil Court where the petitioner has instituted a suit to declare title of the immovable property pursuant to the Partition Deed, and for cancellation of the Gift Deed. Once Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 19/26 the Civil Court adjudicates upon such a dispute, it is needless to state that the truth or otherwise of the execution of the documents by the petitioner would came to fore. In my opinion, the alleged execution of the documents by the petitioner, cannot disentitle the petitioner in law to a restoration of the ‘katha’ of the said property, as the transfer of ‘katha’ without notice to the petitioner is nonest. 10. This case supports the proposition of law held by this Court in M/s.Paramount Constructions’s case (supra). The facts are very different and therefore, the person who challenged the Gift Deed on the basis of his rights claimed in another Partition suit filed by him was held entitled to restoration of ‘Khata’ in his favour because the same was recorded in favour of Donee under the Gift Deed without hearing the petitioner. 11. In the present case, the plaintiff-Mr.Manish Rao was not only heard before recording ‘Khata’ entry in favour of the purchaser under the registered Sale Deeds Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 20/26 but is also said to have given his consent also for such change of ‘Khata’ in favour of the purchasers. 12. In the present case, this Court will advisedly desist from making any observations about the question of validity of either the General Power of Attorney executed by the two ladies Smt. Ramabai and Dr.N.S.Jayanthi and also the question of validity of the Sale Deeds in question, since the competent Civil Court is already seized of the matter and the trial is still pending. The only question which is being raised and is answered in the present petitions is that ‘whether the Joint Commissioner of BBMP or for that matter any other authority of BBMP could have altered the ‘Khata’ entries during the pendency of the civil suits in question’. The clear and unambiguous answer to the same has to be ‘negative’. 13. The settled legal position beyond pale of doubt is that when the question of title and civil rights of the Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 21/26 parties are pending before the competent civil Court, the public bodies have no jurisdiction to enter into the proceedings parallely and decide the question of validity of such documents of conveyance viz., Sale Deeds or Power of Attorney in any manner. Such an exercise would be clearly crossing the swords with the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, which cannot be permitted. 14. The change of ‘Khata’ entries during the pendency of the civil suits cannot be made at the instance of any party and the public body has to wait for the decision of the civil suits. Any such encroachment into the powers of the Civil Court to any extent, small or larger extent, cannot be permitted in law. As such, the jurisdiction of the public body is completely divested and it has to wait for the decision in the civil suits in question. Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 22/26 15. There is no question of such authorities being allowed to record their satisfaction, prima-facie or otherwise on the basis of the documents or evidence led before them and therefore, the Review powers vested on such authorities under Section 114-A of the Act, which empowers such authority to exercise such jurisdiction, only upon recording the finding of fraud or misrepresentation cannot be allowed to be invoked, so long as these very aspects of the matters relevant in the civil suits are properly adjudicated upon by the competent Civil Court. 16. In the present case, the ‘Khata’ entries were entered in the name of the present petitioners in the year 2008 on the basis of the registered Sale Deeds, apparently, with the consent of the 3rd Respondent-Mr. Manish Rao and after obtaining the legal opinion in the matter by the concerned authority. Merely because such Sale Deeds came to be challenged by the 3rd Respondent at a later stage in the year 2009 by filing Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 23/26 the aforesaid civil suits, it does not entitle the 3rd Respondent to seek the restoration of the ‘Khata’ entries either in his own favour or in favour of the original Vendors, his mother and grand mother respectively namely Dr.N.S.Jayanthi and Smt. Ramabai, who had already expired. 17. Any change in the ‘Khata’ entries during the pendency of the civil suits without waiting for the decree in such suits, renders the impugned order wholly without jurisdiction and the same deserves to be quashed. Even though the question of limitation of 3 years was also raised before the said Joint Commissioner by the present petitioners, deciding the said question of limitation against the petitioners and overcoming the same, the Respondent-Joint Commissioner recorded the finding that since the Sale Deeds in question were executed after the date of death of Smt.Ramabai and Dr.N.S.Jayanthi, they have to be treated as void and the said Joint Commissioner Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 24/26 proceeded to record the ‘Khata’ entries in favour of the original vendors. The said Joint Commissioner was neither entitled nor he has taken into account the effect of legal provisions including Section 202 of the Contract Act. 18. Be that as it may, these finer questions of law do not lie with his domain to decide. Therefore, there is no question of the said Joint Commissioner treating these Sale Deeds as void and he ought to have kept such proceedings under Section 114-A in abeyance awaiting the decision of the civil suits. 19. Merely because he felt to bound by the directions of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 12.12.2012 in W.P.No.38099/2011 to pass such an order within a period of four months, he could not have entered upon the enquiry about the validity or otherwise of the Sale Deeds in question. The learned Single Judge of this Court never directed him to effect the ‘Khata’ Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 25/26 entries in a particular manner. The only direction was to consider the case as expeditiously as possible. 20. The fact of filing of civil suits in the matter apparently was not brought to the notice the learned Single Judge of this Court while the order dated 12.12.2012 was passed. There is no mention in the said order about the aforesaid two civil suits filed in the year 2009 were pending before the Trial Court. 21. If the said Joint Commissioner felt any difficulty to decide the case under Section 114-A of the Act, in view of the pendency of the said civil suits, he could have very well applied to this Court seeking further suitable directions for awaiting the decision of the civil suits. But instead of taking such a recourse to the appropriate method, he embarked upon the enquiry into the validity of the Sale Deeds in question and holding them to be void, proceeded to restore the ‘Khata’ Date of Judgment 06-09-2017 W.P.Nos.6201-6204/2015 M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates & others Vs. The Joint Commissioner (East Zone), BBMP & others 26/26 entries in favour of the original Vendors, Smt.Ramabai and Dr.Smt.N.S.Jayanthi. 22. The question of present petitioners, the purchasers under the Registered Sale Deeds which are impugned before the trial Court reaping the benefit out of the said property is completely irrelevant in the present case. So long as such sale deeds hold the field, the purchasers under that Sale Deeds cannot be deprived of the benefits flowing from such property. 23. In these circumstances, the present petitions deserves to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed and the impugned order Annexure-C dated 25.09.2014 passed by the Respondent-Joint Commissioner is quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite the trial of the suits. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Srl. "