Before you apply Property tax name transfer
Property tax name transfer · your situation
The public property record cannot be found or the recorded name is disputed or incorrect.
Your next step
Our research left one requirement for this situation unresolved in the public record. Take the clarification below to the responsible office and get the current position in writing before you submit anything.
Responsible on the public record: Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike / Bengaluru City Corporations Revenue Department. We did not confirm that this office decides this particular case.
Block one
Found in public documents, graded and dated. The statements closest to your situation come first; a single first-person account never outranks the documentary record. Open any source to read it yourself.
The current public e-Aasthi EC-upload page directs a user unable to fetch EC details to the respective ARO.
Read this with itThe source does not state how the ARO resolves a case or how long resolution takes.
The current public eKhata Application Status page requires an EPID and exposes stage, routing, date, status, and remarks columns.
Read this with itNo EPID was entered, so no property-specific status, error, or ownership state is asserted.
The unqueried public eKhata Application Status page renders No Data Available by default.
Read this with itThis default display is not a diagnosis that a particular EPID is invalid, missing, or incorrectly owned.
The current public e-Aasthi EC-upload page says an application will not be processed if its registered deed number is not in the submitted encumbrance certificate.
Read this with itNo deed number, EC, upload, or processing result was supplied; this is a public validation condition, not a case result.
The public BBMP Property Tax System page lists name/address change among property corrections and directs users with name or receipt discrepancies to Find Your ARO, while publishing Revenue contact details.
Read this with itThe page also identifies its feature list as last updated 27-06-2017; current eligibility and response are not established.
Rule 10 of the BBMP Property Tax Assessment, Recovery and Management Rules, 2024 permits mutation information from a Sub-Registrar Form 18 intimation, an authorised-officer or court order, or information supplied by an interested person.
Read this with itThis rule states intake bases; it does not identify which one a particular property or public portal route will accept.
Rule 10 and Form 23 of the BBMP Property Tax Assessment, Recovery and Management Rules, 2024 provide at least fifteen days for an objection to a published mutation entry, in writing or online.
Read this with itNo notice, objection, or property-specific response was observed.
The current BBMP Property Tax System grievance page directs receipt discrepancies, name-related queries, and related queries to Find Your ARO.
Read this with itThe source exposes the official handoff, not a name-correction document checklist or completed correction.
The current public e-Aasthi search exposes Ward Name/Number, property ePID, and SAS Property Tax ID lookup controls.
Read this with itNo identifier, ward, owner name, or property result was entered or retrieved.
The public BBMP Property Tax System grievance form lists owner-name correction or update in a receipt as a selectable subject.
Read this with itSelectable grievance subjects, not triggered errors; no grievance was submitted.
The public BBMP Property Tax System correction page lists Name and Address Change under property corrections for Form 2 and Form 3 properties.
Read this with itThe public feature list is dated 2017; current eligibility and outcome are not established.
Section 149(1) of the published BBMP Act text states that the transferor and transferee must give notice of transfer of title within three months after execution, registration, or the transfer being effected, as applicable.
Read this with itBinding-text claim, but the accessed copy is as amended by Act 12 of 2023 and the official index lists later amendments. The original official endpoint is currently unavailable; this claim is retained as incomplete historical/public evidence, not a current complete procedure.
Rule 10 of the 2024 BBMP property-tax rules provides mutation information from a Sub-Registrar Form 18 intimation slip, an authorised-officer or court order, or information supplied by an interested person, with the information recorded in the prescribed mutation registers.
Read this with itPublished rule routes; it does not establish which route a specific property will expose. The original official endpoint is currently unavailable; this claim is retained as incomplete historical/public evidence, not a current complete procedure.
Rule 10 and Form 23 provide for publication and individual notice concerning a mutation entry, with at least fifteen days to submit an objection in writing or online.
Read this with itPublished objection opportunity; no particular notice or objection was observed. The original official endpoint is currently unavailable; this claim is retained as incomplete historical/public evidence, not a current complete procedure.
One citizen reported a property-tax receipt in their name while an e-Aasthi payment page appeared to request a mutation charge for the same flat.
Read this with itA single report of apparently inconsistent surfaces. It does not prove that the tax record and khata register are independently maintained or that a charge was due.
One citizen reported that, despite a completed e-Khata and paid mutation charge, their property-tax name-update grievance remained pending.
Read this with itOne public account; it does not establish a general queue state, deadline, or recovery.
One citizen reported that a mutation component was rejected but a final e-Khata was later issued in the prior owner's name, and that the displayed online correction route could not be used in their case because it showed a prior-owner e-KYC condition.
Read this with itOne 2026 account. It does not establish a current e-KYC rule, final-record effect, correction eligibility, cause of rejection, or that reapplication is unavailable in other cases.
One citizen reported that their name was absent from a property-record ledger after an incorrect page had been uploaded, that the issue was later corrected, and that they were asked to submit a new e-Khata application with a new e-PID and an additional mutation-fee demand whose reason was unclear to them.
Read this with itOne 2026 account. It does not establish a missing-record cause, whether correction or reapplication was required, the source or validity of a fee, or a general e-PID rule.
Block two
Two kinds of thing sit here: questions the published record leaves open, and points where our own reading stopped — at a login we did not cross, or a step we could not observe without applying. Each item says which it is. Both are reasons to ask before you apply rather than after.
This pass did not establish a property-specific succession decision, record correction, missing-property response, payment reconciliation, name correction, mutation certification, or e-Khata order.
Where we stoppedNo login, OTP, property identifier, EC, form, objection, payment, or submission was used.
Block three
Failure points recorded for this situation, with the recovery the record supports — or the absence of one.
A 15-day objection opportunity is published, but case-specific filing fields and review outcome are not.
The tax portal lists name correction and Find Your ARO, but not current acceptance or completion criteria.
A citizen reports a property-tax receipt in their name while a transfer-payment surface appeared to request mutation charges.
You need the property-tax record corrected, but the public page lists a route without saying what the office will accept or what completion looks like.
Public rules and screens identify succession, search, EC, payment, and ARO handoffs but do not expose a property-specific decision or correction result without case data.
One citizen reported a corrected ledger-name issue followed by a new e-Khata application, new e-PID and an additional mutation-fee demand that they could not explain.
One citizen reported a final e-Khata in a prior owner's name after a rejected mutation component and an unavailable correction route in that case.
Take it with you
Both are built from the same claim records you just read. Neither one adds a fact that is not above.
Take this to the office
The questions this situation leaves open, each with the document and date that raised it, and a note of what you have already read. It contains no personal details — you fill those in yourself before sending.
Same record, different reader
The identical evidence shaped for an assistant: supported facts with their grades and dates, the unresolved questions kept unresolved, and an explicit instruction that it authorises nothing.
Check us
Read them yourself. If one has moved or changed since we checked it, that is worth knowing before you act.
Not your case?
How to read the gradesA — binding law, regulation, commission order or gazette notification. B — current official procedure, form, portal or agency page. C — official but indirect, incomplete, archived, undated or potentially outdated. E — genuine public first-person evidence. Unknown — no usable source.
Independent research, not official advice. Public sources and known gaps are shown together; do not submit personal data through this ledger. Evidence collected as of 2026-08-31; nothing on this page is generated when you open it. Every statement is a recorded claim you can trace to the source above, and the unsettled items stay unsettled on purpose.