ORDER : The petitioner, Mr. N. Vijaya Kumar, has challenged the endorsement dated 19-2-2015, passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer, whereby the Assistant Revenue Officer has refused to transfer the khatha in the name of the petitioner interalia on the ground that an objection has been raised, and there is a dispute between two parties with regard to the same property. 2. The brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, his father, Mr. C. Nageshwar Chari, acquired part of a property in khatha No.72/72, property No.72, situate at Munnekolala New Extension, Ashwath Nagar, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. The said property measures 20 feet East to West, and 25 feet towards North to South. Thus, in all the property measures 500 square feet. The said property came to his father through a panchayat partition deed. The said panchayat partition deed was acted upon in the name of his father, Mr. C. Nageshwara Chari, and his name was entered in the khatha. Further, according to the petitioner, on 31-1-2013, his father executed a registered gift deed in his favour. Therefore, on 23-2-2013, the petitioner submitted an application for transferring the khatha in respect of schedule property along with a copy of the registered gift deed dated 31-1-2013. However, despite the fact he submitted an application before respondent No.2, the Assistant Revenue Officer, he did not act on the said application. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, despite the fact that the khatha was not transferred in his name, he continued to pay the property taxes to the respondent. He further claims that despite the lapse of two years, respondent No.2 has not reacted to the said application filed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was tired of the fact that his application was not considered, he applied for certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is upon his application, under the said Act that he was informed that his uncle, Mr. C. Veerabhadrachari, had given a representation on 27-3-2013, wherein he had claimed the khatha of the property in dispute should not be transferred in the name of the petitioner. According to Mr. C. Veerabhadrachari, the property belonged to his father, late Mr. Chikkannachari. The property was partitioned amongst the four sons of late Mr. Chikkannachari. Although the petitioner’s father, Mr. C. Nageshwar Chari happens to be eldest son of late Mr. According to Mr. C. Veerabhadrachari, the property belonged to his father, late Mr. Chikkannachari. The property was partitioned amongst the four sons of late Mr. Chikkannachari. Although the petitioner’s father, Mr. C. Nageshwar Chari happens to be eldest son of late Mr. Chikkannachari, but the other brothers, including Mr. C. Veerabhadrachari, have an interest in the property in dispute. 3. Considering the fact that both the petitioner and respondent No.3 claimed title to the same property, by endorsement dated 19-2-2015, respondent No.2 rejected the petitioner’s application for transfer of the khatha as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. M.A. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the formalities under Section 114 of the K.M.C. Act are completed, once the necessary documents have been submitted by the petitioner, his application for transfer of the khatha could not be rejected by respondent No.2. Secondly, there is no dispute as no civil litigation is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.3 with regard to title of the property in question. Therefore, the observation made by respondent No.2, that a dispute seems to exist with regard to the property, is highly misplaced. Hence, the impugned endorsement deserves to be set aside by this Court. Moreover, a direction should be issued to the respondent No.2 to transfer the khatha of the property in the petitioner’s name. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned endorsement. 6. Section 114 of the K.M.C. Act is as under: 114. Obligation of transferor and transferee to give notice of transfer.- (1) Whenever the title of any person primarily liable to the payment of the property tax on any premises to or over such premises is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred shall, within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration if it be registered or after the transfer is effected, if no instrument be executed, give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner. (2) In the event of the death of any person primarily liable as aforesaid, the person to whom the title of the deceased shall be transferred as heir or otherwise shall give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner within one year from the death of the deceased. (2) In the event of the death of any person primarily liable as aforesaid, the person to whom the title of the deceased shall be transferred as heir or otherwise shall give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner within one year from the death of the deceased. (3) Whenever such transfer comes to the knowledge of the Commissioner or authorised officer through such notice the name of the transferee shall be entered in the property tax register. (4) Every person who makes a transfer as aforesaid without giving such notice to the Commissioner shall, in addition to any other liability which he may incur through such neglect, continue to be liable for the payment of the property tax assessed on the premises transferred until he gives notice or until the transfer shall have been recorded in the corporation registers, but nothing in this section shall be held to affect, (a) the liability of the transferee for the payment of the said tax, or (b) the prior charge of the corporation under section 111. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in respect of any [building or vacant land] belonging to the City of Mysore Improvement Trust Board, the Bangalore Development Authority or the Karnataka Housing Board or any local authority the possession of which has been delivered to any person in pursuance of any grant, allotment or lease by the Board or local authority concerned, the transfer of title of any person primarily liable to the payment of property tax shall not be recorded in the corporation registers without consulting the Board or local authority concerned. 7. A bare perusal of the said Section clearly reveals that it merely prescribes a procedure for transfer of the khatha. 8. However, in case there is a dispute between two persons claiming title over the same property, notwithstanding the fact, that the procedure under Section 114 of the K.M.C. Act may have been complied with, the respondent No.2 would be still justified in not transferring the khatha in the name of any one of the two parties. For, in the case of Mr. For, in the case of Mr. C. Krishnappa v. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Another [1990 (1) K.L.J. 414], this Court has clearly opined that “when there is dispute to change mutation and after entries in the property register and there is an objector, the wise course for the Commissioner is not to decide the question of title directly or indirectly himself but refer the parties to the Civil Court which is the competent forum where all questions of title to property should be decided”. 9. Even according to the petitioner, his uncle, respondent No.3, Mr. C. Veerabhadrachari, has raised an objection to transfer the khatha in the petitioner’s name. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that a dispute does not exist between two parties. Although the two parties are yet to approach a civil Court, but merely because a civil suit has not been filed, it does not mean that a dispute does not exist between the parties with regard to title of the property. Once an objection is raised by respondent No.3 with regard to the property in dispute, respondent No.2 was well justified in concluding, and informing the petitioner that further action shall be taken only after the dispute regarding the property is decided, or concluded. Thus, the endorsement dated 19-2-2015 is legally valid. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.