BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE short point for consideration in this case is whether the Corporation of the City of Bangalore is empowered to revoke the khatha and assessment in respect of the petitioner's property in the registers of the Office of the Corporation. ( 2 ) THE material facts are that, on an application made by the petitioner after purchasing the immovable property in question by virtue of registered sale deeds for transfer of khatha to the name of the petitioner in the registers of the Office of the Corporation, the Corporation of the city of Bangalore issued an endorsement dated 7-1 1966 informing the petitioner that the khatha has been transferred from the name of Smt. M. Kuppammal to the name of the petitioner. Later on, after the lapse of about 20 years, the same corporation authority issued an endorsement dated 4-2-1986 to the petitioner informing the petitioner that the khatha entry has been revoked and the reason gjven is that the land in question belongs to the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Tajuddin submitted that, in the first place, the impugned endorsement dated 4-2-1986 under Annexure-J communicating the petitioner the revocation of the khatha standing in his name is in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the said endorsement has communicated not only the revocation of the khatha, but also the decision taken by the Corporation that the property belongs to the Corporation of the City of Bangalore without hearing the petitioner and, secondly, that the impugned endorsement is devoid of jurisdiction since no power is invested in the corporation to change the khatha already entered on the assumption that the property really belongs to the Corporation itself. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Sri Keshavan sub- mitted that since khatha is only an evidence of possession of the property and does not indicate or decide the title to the property, it is open to the Corporation to rectify any mistake committed in the matter of entry of khatha in its registers it was also contended that the petitioner was served with two notices dated 13-12-1985 and 25-1-1986 calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents in support of his title to the property and also to appear before the Assistant Revenue Officer of the Corporation. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner disputed the assertion of the Corporation that notices were served on the petitioner by the Corporation as alleged and denied knowledge of any such notice. In view of the material produced by the learned Counsel for the respondents showing service of notice on the petitioner, it is not possible to accept the contention that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. ( 6 ) ANY change in the khatha has material consequences on not only the aspect of possessory title but also the right of ownership of immovable property, though the khatha by itself is not conelusive in the determination of title. At least it could be said that it is one of the supporting documents to evidence title, in the instant case, at least, there is prima facie indication of acquisition of ownership of the property by the petitioner on the basis of three registered sale deeds. In order to rebut the presumption of title, the Corporation cannot act as a judge in its own cause and adjudicate the question of title because such a power is not invested in the Corporation, if at all the Corporation is aggrieved and claims that the property belongs to it and not to the petitioner, the proper course would be to approach the civil court for determination of the question of title instead of revoking the khatha which stands in the name of the petitioner. The corporation cannot confer upon itself power which is not invested in it by the legislature. To that extent, it could be said that the Corporation has exceeded its jurisdiction. ( 7 ) WHAT is significant in the impugned endorsement under Annexure J is the emphatic assertion of the Corporation that the khatha which was registered in favour of the petitioner has been revoked in the registers of its office as the land in question belongs to Corporation of the city of Bangalore. Apparent on the face of it is the assumption of the Corporation which is both unilateral and untested that the property belongs to the Corporation and not to the petitioner. The Corporation does not stand on a higher pedestal than the ordinary citizen in the matter of civil disputes on property rights. Apparent on the face of it is the assumption of the Corporation which is both unilateral and untested that the property belongs to the Corporation and not to the petitioner. The Corporation does not stand on a higher pedestal than the ordinary citizen in the matter of civil disputes on property rights. I do not see any valid or legal justification to hold that the Corporation was within its power to issue the impugned endorsement of revocation of the khatha. It is my opinion that the impugned endorsement is arbitrary and illegal. ( 8 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above. Rule is issued and made absolute. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement is hereby quashed. However, it is open to the corporation to seek appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law for the purpose of determining the title to the property and it is only after the adjudication of the ti le by a competent court that the Corporation can proceed to make any changes as warranted by the decision of the Court and not otherwise. The effect of allowing this writ petition is that the khatha in respect of the propeity in question stands restored to the name of the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .