H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order for quashing the endorsement issued by respondent No. 2 the assistant revenue officer, shivajinagar area, corporation of city of Bangalore, north east range, bearing No. Da 71/ktr. 31/92-93, dated 25-9-1992, a copy of which has been annexed to the petition as Annexure 'c', and declaring the same to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has further sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer katha of the property in favour of the petitioner as per his application dated 14-6-1990 as per Annexure 'b' to the writ petition and for grant of such other reliefs. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are, that the petitioner claims to have purchased residential site measuring 50' east-west and 30' north-south along with 2 square building situated at No. 10/1, 6th cross, vasanthnagar, corporation division No. 44, Bangalore 560 052. The petitioner claims to have purchased this residential site with building from Smt. Munirathnamma, wife of Sri BLP. Kondaramaih vide registered sale deed dated 12-4-1990, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 'a'. The petitioner's case further is that after the purchase of the aforesaid property, the petitioner had applied for the change of khata in his name from that of Smt. Munirathnamma, to respondent No. 2 vide his application dated 14-6-1990. Later on, as per communication dated 7-7-1990, respondent No. 2 deferred the matter of transfer or substitution of the name of petitioner in the khata on the ground that they have written to the government for objections. The petitioner further submits that after a lapse of 20 months he received another communication dated 25-9-1992 wherein respondent No. 2 directed him to file a rectification deed to the extent of 22' x 30' in order to transfer the khata in the name of the petitioner only to that extent, even though the transfer deed was for 30' x 50'. The petitioner has annexed copy of that endorsement dated 25-9-1992 as Annexure 'c' to the writ petition. The petitioner has annexed copy of that endorsement dated 25-9-1992 as Annexure 'c' to the writ petition. The petitioner further submitted that the said property stood in the name of Smt. Munirathnamma; vide khata endorsement dated 4-8-82, confirming the extent of the said property to be 30' x 50' and the annual property tax has been shown to be assessed at Rs. 294/- as per Annexure 'd' to the writ petition. The petitioner submits that he approached respondent No. 2 many times for transfer of khata, but respondent No. 2 orally informed that there is a dispute about the extent of area and hence they are seeking clarification from the authorities in order to consider his request. Finding no other way as the respondent has directed the petitioner to file a rectification deed to the extent of 22' x 30' if he wanted mutation and transfer of khata in his name, the petitioner having no other efficacious, alternative remedy has filed this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution and in the petition it has been submitted that Annexure 'c' is completely illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) ON behalf of respondents, a counter statement verified on affidavit has been filed. In the counter statement supported by the affidavit, it has not been specifically denied that Smt. Munirathnamma the vendor of the property possessed residential site measuring 30' x 50' along with 2 square building situate at No. 10/1, 6th cross, vasanthanagar, corporation division No. 44, Bangalore and the said property was sold to the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 12-4-1990, and that katha of the above property was in the name of Smt. Munirathnamma and taxes were being collected from her with respect to that property of 50' x 30' dimension with a two square building on it. It has instead been submitted and admitted in para 1 of the c. a. that it is true that petitioner made an application on 14-6-1990 under Section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Act, 1976 (hereinafter described as act No. 14 of 1977 ). The respondents also admit that khata was in the name of munirathnamma and property tax of Rs. 294/- was assessed as per Annexure 'd'. The respondents also admit that khata was in the name of munirathnamma and property tax of Rs. 294/- was assessed as per Annexure 'd'. The respondents have taken a plea in the counter affidavit that the property was assessed to tax to the extent of 30' x 50' in the name of munirathnamma under mistake of facts or due to some misrepresentation and so no title on the basis thereof would pass to that lady or to the transferee from her. In paragraph 9 of the counter statement it has been asserted by the respondents that property for which khata has been applied for by the petitioner on the basis of title deed measures 22' x 30' and not 50' x 30' the respondents assert that the remaining 28' x 30' is corporation land and it is a road margin and that the entry in the name of munirathnamma as 50' x 30' was the result of some misrepresentation by that lady and the authorities acted inadvertently under some mistake of facts which was subsequently discovered and hence, they directed the petitioner to obtain the rectification deed to recognise his title over the site to the extent of 22' x 30' respondents submit that petitioner instead of satisfying the requirement of Annexure 'c' has approached this court. Respondents have taken the stand that the corporation is correcting its mistake by making correction of khata in respect of the measurement of property over which the petitioner claims title and it cannot register the khata as a matter of course when the petitioner is not entitled to in respect of the property for which he cannot have any claim. It is further stated by respondents in the counter that the petitioner therefore is not entitled to the grant of writ of mandamus. No rejoinder to the counter has been filed. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri H. L. Nagesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. N. Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that under Section 114 of Karnataka Act No. 14 of 1977 the petitioner is required, on a transfer in his favour, to intimate corporation authorities or the commissioner of the corporation about the transfer and this has got to be done within a period of 3 months from the date of registration. The petitioner's case is that he had intimated the commissioner of the transfer and sought for mutation entries being made in his name in the corporation records. The learned counsel submitted that copy of the transfer deed had also been filed along with the application and as per the deed, an area measuring 50' east to west and 30' north to south has been transferred by the vendor Smt. Munirathnamma who held that area along with the construction and it was so recorded in the corporation records. Therefore, it was the bounden duty of the corporation authorities to have ordered mutation or transfer in the name of the petitioner in the place of the vendor in respect of that area. Learned counsel further submitted that the opposite parties could not direct the petitioner to obtain rectification deed and could not direct the petitioner to get the area reduced from 50' x 30' to 22' x 30' and in doing so, the authorities have exceeded jurisdiction. The dispute regarding the extent should have been settled separately between the previous vendor and the corporation and the application of the petitioner for change of khata could not be delayed by asking the petitioner to file rectification deed. The learned counsel submitted that it is not within the jurisdiction of the corporation to issue any direction as such. Therefore, Annexure 'c' requires to be quashed. The learned counsel invited my attention to Annexure 'd' to the writ petition as well in support of his contention on the question regarding the area which was recorded in the name of the vendor of the petitioner. On behalf of the opposite parties, learned counsel for the corporation submitted that the petitioner's remedy is to file a regular suit for declaration of title and when he has got title declared he may obtain mutation in the record on the basis thereof. Therefore, this petition is misconceived. Learned counsel for the corporation sri K. N. Puttegowda further submitted that discrepancies were found in the property relating to the vendor of the petitioner and therefore petitioner had been directed to get his deed rectified. Therefore, there was nothing wrong as power could be exercised under Section 443 and the licence or allotment could be revoked. ( 5 ) I have considered the contentions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have perused the records. Therefore, there was nothing wrong as power could be exercised under Section 443 and the licence or allotment could be revoked. ( 5 ) I have considered the contentions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have perused the records. I first propose to deal with the plea taken by the respondents counsel that petitioner has got alternative remedy to file suit and as such, this petition should be dismissed. No doubt it is one of the well-settled principles of exercise of discretionary power by this court under article 226 of the Constitution that if a party has got an alternative remedy of filing a suit, he should be asked to exhaust that remedy first. But where, facts prima facie disclose that the authorities have acted in a manner that touches the conscience of the court, it is open to the court to exercise its power under article 226 as has been laid down in the case of state of Uttar Pradesh v mohammad nooh. The material observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court read as under:"on the authorities referred to above it appears to us that there may conceivably be cases and the instant case is in point where the error, irregularity or illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior court or tribunal of first instance is so patent and loudly obtrusive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision. If an inferior court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural Justice and all accepted rules of procedure and which offends the superior court's sense of fair play the superior court may, we think, quite properly exercise its power to issue the prerogative writ of certiorari to correct the error of the court or tribunal of first instance even if an appeal to another inferior court or tribunal was available and recourse was not had to it or if recourse was had to it, it confirmed what ex facie was a nullity for reasons aforementioned. "so refusal to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of alternative remedy does not by itself create a bar that if alternative remedy is there, the court should not exercise its jurisdiction. But it can be exercised even in cases where alternative remedy exists in the cases such as those mentioned above or the like. In this view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties is hereby ruled out and is held to be of no substance, as in the present case it appears prima facie that the opposite party has failed to perform its duty as i will indicate hereinafter and on that ground petitioner cannot be thrown to the onerous relief of civil court at this stage. ( 6 ) THE transfer in this case vide sale deed anhexure 'a' had been made in favour of the petitioner on 12-4-1990 whereunder the property in dispute, the measurement of which has been given as 50' x 30' had been transferred by Smt. Munirathnamma in favour of the petitioner along with the construction thereon. The deed of transfer indicates what is the property the vendor is transferring. After the transfer, the petitioner moved an application and brought the factum of transfer or execution of transfer deed relating to the property which was recorded in the name of vendor and which had been transferred by the vendor in his favour to the authorities as required by Section 114. There can be no doubt that in the transfer deed there would have been description of the property otherwise than as mentioned in the revenue records of the corporation then at that stage, opposite parties could have said that property transferred differs from the one recorded in corporation records and change of name cannot he done. Section 114 of the municipal Corporation Act, 1976 fastens duty on the transferor and the transferee that both of them shall within three months of the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration if it be registered give notice of such transfer to the commissioner. Whenever the title of any person primarily liable to the payment of the property tax on any premises is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred shall intimate. Whenever the title of any person primarily liable to the payment of the property tax on any premises is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred shall intimate. The material expression used is whenever title of any person primarily liable to pay property tax of any premises changes, then duty is cast on the transferor to inform the commissioner of the corporation as well as it is duty of the transferee (vendee) also to bring that factum of transfer of property to the notice of the commissioner, so as to facilitate change or transfer of the name of the owners of the property on the basis of that deed and this is for the fiscal purpose of enabling the corporation authorities to realise tax from the proper person. Therefore, in a case like the present one, what has to be examined is whether transfer deed related to the property which is recorded in the corporation records and if it tallies, the authorities shall proceed for change of mutation entries. In the present case, a perusal of Annexure 'd' shows that an area of 30' x 50' had been purchased by Smt. Munirathnamma and this extent was assessed to tax. It is relevant to quote para 1 of the communication dated 4-8-1982 issued by the commissioner, revenue department, (ne range), corporation of Bangalore which per se shows what property was recorded in the municipal corporation in the name of munirathnamma and to what tax it was assessed. The material portion of aforesaid communication reads as under: "the portion of the above property marked in red colour in the enclosed plan measuring 30' x 50' has been purchased by Smt. M. Munirathnamma is assessed on an a. v. of Rs. 1,500/- with property of Rs. 225-00 + e. g. of Rs. 22. 50 + h. c. of Rs. 33. 75 + l. c. of Rs. 6. 75 and b. c. of Rs. 6. 75 per annum (total of Rs. 294. 75) registering the khata in the name of Smt. M. Munirathnamma under new municipal sub-number 10/1, 6th cross, vasanthanagar, dn. No. 44, Bangalore with effect from 1-4-1982. 22. 50 + h. c. of Rs. 33. 75 + l. c. of Rs. 6. 75 and b. c. of Rs. 6. 75 per annum (total of Rs. 294. 75) registering the khata in the name of Smt. M. Munirathnamma under new municipal sub-number 10/1, 6th cross, vasanthanagar, dn. No. 44, Bangalore with effect from 1-4-1982. " apart from that when it is admitted by the opposite party in his counter affidavit that khata of the above property was registered in the name of munirathnamma, the vendor and the taxes were being collected from her with respect to residential site measuring east to west 50' and south to north 30' along with 2 square buildings as mentioned in para 1 of the counter and the sale deed also indicates that it means that extent was transferred in favour of the petitioner. So for the purpose of fiscal matter, it was not open at this stage to the opposite parties to presume that there was something wrong and call upon the petitioner to file a deed of rectification and indicate therein the area as 22' x 30'. Issuing such a direction tantamounts modifying the entry of title of the predecessor in interest without giving an opportunity of hearing to the vendor as well as the vendee and such an act is nothing but a decision taken ex parte which is not permissible in law. There are certain norms to be followed. Democracy cannot subsist or exist if Rule of law is not followed. No doubt it is the case of the opposite parties that the entry in the name of Smt. Munirathnamma was the result of some misrepresentation by that lady or some mistake of its officials, that could have been rectified at a later stage or under different law. I am quite sure, to meet such a situation the law must be making Provisions for the same and providing the remedies to be followed. ( 7 ) MY attention has been invited to the Provisions of Section 443 (4) of the municipal Corporation Act by the learned counsel for the corporation and he has submitted that there is power to suspend and revoke the entry or to modify the entry. Section 443 finds place in chapter xxi 'procedure and miscellaneous'. ( 7 ) MY attention has been invited to the Provisions of Section 443 (4) of the municipal Corporation Act by the learned counsel for the corporation and he has submitted that there is power to suspend and revoke the entry or to modify the entry. Section 443 finds place in chapter xxi 'procedure and miscellaneous'. It deals with the general Provisions regarding licenses, registrations and permissions and sub-section (4) thereof prima facie shows that it is applicable to the matters of licences and permissions granted under the act or under the bye-law made thereunder. Such licences or permissions can be revoked or suspended by the commissioner if the conditions referred to therein are shown to exist. It provides that suspension or revocation can be done by the commissioner if the grantee has obtained the same by misrepresentation or fraud. Entry existing in the name of the vendor of the petitioner indicating her to be the owner of the property described thereunder and the tax imposed therein can or cannot by itself be said to be a licence or permission, i do not express any opinion. Learned counsel for the respondents laid emphasis on the title of Section 443 and submits that it should be taken to refer to registration as well and submitted that registration of the name of the of property under a transfer deed by a municipal corporation may amount to registration of the factum of transfer in favour of the petitioner by the municipal corporation as an information and so it is within the power of the authority to cancel or revoke the entries as well. Without expressing any further opinion on this question one way or the other, even though for the sake of arguments it may be accepted that Section 443 covers such situation and provides a special provision for rectification of that entry on the ground of its being obtained or made due to misrepresentation or fraud then, when a special provision is there, then in that case it was open to the corporation to adopt that course after having given notice to the parties effected and it is always open to them to proceed with that. Apart from that, if in the municipal corporation documents wrong entry has been got done by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner about 10 or 12 years back and now the mistake has been detected and authorities feel or believe that a portion of the land belonged to the corporation, it was for the corporation to seek for declaration that the title deed of the petitioner to that extent was illegal and inoperative as the entries in their own record were the result of some misrepresentation or fraud if at all there is any fraud etc. Of Smt. Munirathnamma. But on simple assumption that the entry was got made by misrepresentation or fraud, without that question being decided after a proper hearing of Smt. Munirathnamma and the petitioner, if the application for mutation is rejected or the vendeeis asked to get a deed of rectification prepared before getting the transfer recorded that course adopted by opposite parties is illegal. In my opinion the corporation authorities have acted illegally because the authorities should have first recorded change of transfer and thereafter taken proper course to correct the entries or revoke that entry by filing a suit for declaration of right or title, extent of entry, in the name of Smt. Munirathnamma or present vendee petitioner to be operative only to the extent as claimed by the corporation authorities. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the order issued by the opposite parties directing the petitioner to get a deed of rectification prepared changing the area transferred as mentioned from 50' x 30' to 22' x 30' is unauthorised because the corporation itself is not entitled to determine this at this stage that they are the owners of the rest of the area without hearing the other side as well as no man can be a judge of his own case or actions. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The endorsement dated 25-9-1992 vide Annexure 'c' is hereby held to be illegal null and void and is hereby quashed being illegal and without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The endorsement dated 25-9-1992 vide Annexure 'c' is hereby held to be illegal null and void and is hereby quashed being illegal and without jurisdiction. The opposite parties are directed to act in accordance with the Provisions of Section 114 and record the transfer effected by that deed but subject to the right of recourse to the Provisions of law arid the remedies provided by law in getting its own title in respect of the disputed extent or area of land declared. ( 8 ) WRIT petition is allowed. Cost of the writ petition is madeeasy and are to be borne by parties. --- *** --- .