JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. The lis brought before this Court by the appellant- Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) pertains to a portion of the property which was earlier known as Sy.Nos.16, 18 and 25 of Old Bilekahalli (Blackpalli) Village, which is now known as Thimmaiah Road, Miller Tank Bund Area, which was totally measuring about 13 acres. 2. The individual respondents herein who claim to be the owners of certain sites were aggrieved by the inaction of the BBMP in the matter of entering the names of the respondents, who claim title to the sites either by way of sale deeds executed by previous owners or by way of succession to the property through the erstwhile owners. The learned Single Judge has passed individual orders in all the writ petitions that were filed by the respondents herein seeking a direction to the appellant-BBMP to enter their names in the khata register. 3. In all these matters, the BBMP had issued endorsements declining to register the khata and therefore the endorsements were also challenged before the learned Single Judges. While allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents, the learned Single Judge observed that the endorsements issued by the BBMP were cryptic, non-speaking order, dehors reasons and therefore, they cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny and hence, were unsustainable. With this observation, the petitions were allowed and the impugned endorsements were quashed and the Corporation was directed to substitute the name of the respondents herein as khatedars of the respective properties in question and issue certificates without prejudice to the claim of title of the Corporation over the properties in question and subject to the Corporation establishing its title in a properly instituted legal proceeding. 4. Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-BBMP would submit that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge positively to enter the names of the respondents as khatedars, is contrary to the established principles of law. It is submitted that the Corporation should have been given an opportunity to reconsider the applications/representations made by the respondents and thereafter to pass orders in accordance with law. 5. The learned Senior Counsel has also brought to our notice that some of the owners of the property bearing Sy.Nos.16, 18 and 25 of Thimmaiah Road had instituted a suit in O.S.No.10591/1982 which was decreed by the X Addl. 5. The learned Senior Counsel has also brought to our notice that some of the owners of the property bearing Sy.Nos.16, 18 and 25 of Thimmaiah Road had instituted a suit in O.S.No.10591/1982 which was decreed by the X Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, by a decree and judgment dated 04.09.1997. 6. The Corporation preferred a Regular First Appeal in RFA No.820/1997 which was allowed on 05.03.2012. At this juncture, the learned Counsels for the respondents would submit that the decision in RFA No.820/1997 was never brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Nevertheless, it is pointed out from the judgment in RFA No.820/1997 that the Corporation has indeed admitted that it has no claim or title with respect to property bearing Nos.1 to 12 in Sy.No.18. 7. The learned Counsels for the respondents would submit that there was no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge since he had observed that the names of the previous owners and erstwhile owners of the sites were registered in the khata registers of the BBMP and therefore by virtue of the subsequent sale deeds, if the respondents laid a claim seeking transfer of khata, the same was required to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, to be precise, Section 114 of the Act. 8. The learned Counsels would also submit that there is a suit pending consideration before the Civil Court with respect to Sy.No.18 wherein a declaration is sought that the plaintiffs are the owners of a portion of Sy.No.18. 9. The learned AGA would submit that in a different proceeding, this Court had directed the Government to investigate as to genuineness of the grant which is alleged to have been made in favour of Faraulla Khan and the said enquiry has been commenced and is yet to be concluded. 10. We have heard the learned Senior Counsels and the learned AGA and perused the writ papers. 11. Section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 reads as follows: "114. 10. We have heard the learned Senior Counsels and the learned AGA and perused the writ papers. 11. Section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 reads as follows: "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. [(3) Whenever such transfer comes to the knowledge of the Commissioner or authorized 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." 12. The said provision has been interpreted by this Court in several matters to mean that the Commissioner is duty bound to register the khata or transfer the khata in the name of the subsequent purchaser or transferee, if the document of transfer has been executed by the person who was earlier the holder of khata or his legal representatives. The Commissioner is not to decide the title. If there is any objection raised by any person, the authority can only direct such a party to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration of title. 13. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the khata in respect of the properties in question were held in the name of the previous owners and therefore, when once the previous owner has executed a document of title in favour of the subsequent purchaser and the purchaser makes an application seeking transfer of khata, based on such registered document, the authorities are duty bound to transfer the khata in favour of the subsequent purchaser. 14. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, under the facts and circumstances that unless and until the Corporation establishes its title by a legally constituted suit, it would be incumbent upon the Corporation to maintain the khata with respect to the individual sites in the name of the individual respondents before this Court, is required to be upheld, but with a modification that if there is any provision in the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the appellant-Corporation may pursue that remedy also. 15. It is made clear that the entry of the names of the individual respondents herein in the khata register, will be subject to the outcome of the proceedings to be initiated by the Corporation and it is also made clear that this direction will not come in the way of the enquiry or investigation that is underway at the behest of the State Government. 16. The learned AGA would clarify that the investigation is with respect to Sy.No.18 only. The individual respondents are also directed not to create encumbrance, create third party interest or transfer etc. in case proceedings are initiated by the appellant-BBMP within a period of six months from today. This is to enable the appellant-Corporation to initiate the proceedings and secure appropriate orders from the appropriate authority. 17. The individual respondents are also directed not to create encumbrance, create third party interest or transfer etc. in case proceedings are initiated by the appellant-BBMP within a period of six months from today. This is to enable the appellant-Corporation to initiate the proceedings and secure appropriate orders from the appropriate authority. 17. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand disposed of. In view of the disposal of the appeals, the pending I.As. stand disposed of.