- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1294 OF 2024 (LB-UC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KAVEERAPPA @ MUNUKAVERAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, KADAGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077 SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU H L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF TALUK PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077 3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077 4. GOVERNMENT ANGANAVADI TEACHING CENTRE DODDAGUBBI POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077 REPRESENTED BY ANGANAWADI TEACHER. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024 5. SRI. KANTHAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.03, KADAGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077. 6. SRI. SHIVKUMAR N S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.03, KADAGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI .V., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-4; SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. M.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. PRASANNA.V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/06/2022 IN APPELLATE APPEAL NO. C.R. 02/2021-22 PASSED BY RESPONDENTS 2/EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF TALUK PANCHAYATH BENGALURU EAST TALUK PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THIS WP, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed challenging an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Under the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has directed to remove the temporary structures found on katha No.17/2. 3. The reasoning of the said order reads as follows – “ ಪಾ 2ರವರು ೕಲನಾರರ ೕಲನೆ ತಕಾರು ಮತು ತಾದವನು ಾಂಕ 22/02/2022 ರಂದು ಮಂ !ದು", ೕಲನಾರರು ೕಲನಯ$ %ೇ&ರುವ ಷಯಗಳನು ಅಲ$ೆ+ೆಯು,ಾ, ಸದ. ಮೆಯ /ಾಗವನು 2ೇ ಎದುರುಾರರ ತಂೆಯವರ ತಮಾದ 1ೕ ೊಡ4ಮು5 ಹುಚ8ಪ9ನವ.ಂದ 1969 ರ$ ಹಕು: ;ಡುಗ<ೆ ಪತದ ಮೂಲಕ 2ೇ ಎದುರುಾರ.ೆ ಬಂರುತೆ. ಅದರಂ,ೆ 2ೇ ಎದುರುಾರರ ಅನುಭವ ಮತು ಕಂಾಯವನು ?ಾವ!@ೊಂಡು ಬರುದು". ಆ ಸBನ 5ಜಾದ DಾೕಕಾEದು" Fೇೆ Gಾ.ಗೂ ಹಕು: ಇರುವIಲ$ ಎಂದು ತಮ ತಕಾರು ತಾದದ$ &ಸು,ಾ. ಹಕು: ;ಡುಗ<ೆ ಪತ Jಾ,ೆ, ಕಂಾಯ ರ1ೕಗಳನು ಲಗ!, ೕಲನಾರರು ಸ$!ರುವ ೕಲನಯನು ದಂಡ ಸೕತ ವ/ಾDಾಡFೇ@ೆಂದು @ೋ.ರು,ಾೆ. 1ೇ ಎದುರುಾರಾದ K. .ಒ ರವರು ಾಂಕ 16/06/2022 ರಂದು ಈ ?ಾN@ಾರ@ೆ: ಪಕರಣ@ೆ: ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟR ವರ ಸ$!ರು,ಾೆ. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024 ೕಲ:ಂಡಂ,ೆ ಾ ಮತು ಪಾಗಳ ಾದ ಮತು ಾದ ಮತು ಾಖTಾಗಳನು ಪ.1ೕ!ದ ನಂತರ ಕಾUಟಕ ಾಮ ಸBಾV ಮತು ಪಂWಾಯX ಾV ಅN5ಯಮ 1993 ಕಲಂ 269 ರ 5ೕ ರುವ ಪದತಾದ ಅN@ಾರವನು ಉಪZೕE!@ೊಂಡು ಈ @ೆಳಕಂಡಂ,ೆ ಆೇ1!ೆ. -:DzÉñÀ:- ಾ ಮತು ಪಾಗಳ[ ಸ$!ರುವ ಾಖTಾಗಳನು ಪ.1ೕ! ಾಯವರ ೕಲನಯನು ಅಂEೕಕ.!ೆ. 2ೇ ಎದುರುಾರಾದ ಮುನು@ಾೇರಪ9 Fೆ\ Tೇ] ಸಂ^ೕವಪ9 ರವರು Jಾ,ೆ ನಂ:17/2 ರ$ ಾಮ_ಾ`ಾ ಬಂ ಾ.ಯ$ ಒತುವ. Dಾ @ೊಂಡು ಅಕಮಾE 5aU!ರುವ ,ಾ,ಾ:ಕ ಗು ಸಲನು ,ೆರವIೊ&bಸಲು ಆೇ1!ೆ ಮತು Jಾ,ೆ ನಂ: 17/2 ರ ಪcವU-ಪ18ಮ=40 ಅ ಉತರ-ದdಣ=40 ಅ !ೕಣUವನು ರದು"ೊ&! ಪcವU-ಪ18ಮ=40 ಅ ಉತರ-ದdಣ=25 ಅ ಗಳ !ೕಣUೆಂದು ದು"ಪ Dಾ Jಾ,ೆ ನಮೂದು Dಾಡಲು %ಾಗೂ ಅಂಗನಾ eಾTೆಯ !ೕಣUವನು ಮೂಲಾನಪತದಂ,ೆ 25*30 ಅ ಗಳಂ,ೆ ನಮೂಸಲು ಎದುರುಾರಾದ - 1@ೆ: %ಾಗೂ ಒತುವ. ಆEರುವ ಅಂಗನಾ @ಾಂ?ೌಂಡನು ,ೆರವIೊ&ಸಲು ಎದುರುಾರಾದ 3ೆಯವ.ೆ ಸೂiಸು,ಾ, ೕಲ:ಂಡ !ೕಣUದಂ,ೆ Jಾ,ೆ ನಮೂದು Dಾಡಲು ಪಂWಾj ಅkವೃm ಅN@ಾ.ಯವ.ೆ ಸೂi! ಆೇ1!ೆ.” 4. As could be seen from the above, the Appellate Authority has not even indicated as to on what basis the petitioner was entitled to only an extent of 40x25ft. and not 40x40ft., as indicated in the katha. 5. Unless the Appellate Authority recorded a finding regarding the entitlement of the petitioner and the reason why he was not considering the entries in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024 katha register, the order passed on the pre- supposition that the petitioner owned a land only 40x25ft. when the katha indicated that he owned a land of 40x40ft. cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority. 6. The Appellate Authority is directed to record a categorical finding as to how the petitioner is not entitled to an extent of land measuring 40x40ft., as indicated in the Assessment list and as to how he is entitled to only an extent of 40x25ft. 7. This Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and remanded. 8. Any dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 regarding the change of katha or over the entitlement of the land would obviously be subject to a suit that may be instituted by either of the parties before the Civil Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21