- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:756 WP No. 10658 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 10658 OF 2023 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ASHIYA BI W/O ABDUL SATTAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O CHELUVADI KERI SHIRALAKOPPA, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577428. 2. UMME SALMA W/O MOHAMMED MUSHTAK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS KURABARA KERI, SHIRALAKOPPA SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577428. 3. ABDUL REHMAN S/O ABDUL SAMAD SAB AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS KURABARA KERI, SHIRALAKOPPA SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577428. 4. NAZRULLA H S/O ABDUL SAMAD SAB AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS KURABARA KERI, SHIRALAKOPPA SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577428 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:756 WP No. 10658 of 2023 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577421. 2. THA TAHSILDAR SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577427. 3. CHIEF OFFICER SHIRALAKOPPA TOWN PANCHAYATH SHIRALAKOPPA TOWN SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577428. 4. H MOHAMMED HANEEF S/O ABDUL WAHAB AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O MAVINA KOPPALU SORABA TOWN, SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577429. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 & -2; SRI. A.V.GANGADHARAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. VASANTHA KUMAR.K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.GNAKO (2) C.C.52/2018-19 DATED 04.04.2022, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION. AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN PROCEEDINGS NO RRDSCR NO.171/16-17 DATED 07.09.2018 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:756 WP No. 10658 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The admitted facts are that in respect of property khaneshumari No.1472-920 measuring 50’ X 132’ situate at Neralagi Road, Kelagina Keri, Shiralakoppa town, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District, by the order dated 29.06.1992, the khatha was ordered to be registered jointly in the name of Smt.Khathijabi (mother of respondent No.4) and Sri H.Abdul Samad Sab (father of the petitioners 3 & 4). 2. Ten years after the order dated 29.06.1992 was passed, a suit in O.S.No.97 of 2012 was instituted by the joint khatedar i.e., Khathijabi and her son respondent No.4 against one H.Syed Ahmed and others, which ended in compromise, whereby the aforementioned property bearing khaneshumari - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:756 WP No. 10658 of 2023 No.1472-920 was conceded to belong to Khathijabi and she was permitted to get the khata registered, jointly along with her son, 4th respondent herein. 3. On the basis of this compromise decree, the 4th respondent sought for registration of khatha in his favour but, since this was refused, he approached the Tahsildar, who proceeded to issue a direction to register the khatha in his name. 4. Being aggrieved by this order, the Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayat, Shiralakoppa, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal directing the khatha to be registered in accordance with the decree passed by the Civil Court i.e., the compromise decree. 5. It may be pertinent to state here that in these proceedings, the petitioners were not arrayed as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:756 WP No. 10658 of 2023 parties, though the khatha has stood jointly in the name of their father and Khathijabi. 6. It is submitted that this compromise decree obtained by Khathijabi and her son are also challenged by the petitioners by filing a suit in O.S. No.58 of 2022 and the same is pending adjudication. 7. If the Khata of a property is jointly registered in the name of two people, the authorities cannot delete the name of one person on the basis of the compromise decree obtained by the other Khatedar. The authorities can change the Khata only when both the joint Khatedars were parties to the compromise decree. Admittedly, in this case, both the Khathedars ware not parties. Consequently, any attempt to change the Khata to the exclusion of one of the joint Khatedar would be illegal. 8. The Deputy Commissioner has without noticing this simple but vital aspect has proceeded to dismiss the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:756 WP No. 10658 of 2023 appeal filed by the Chief Officer and has ordered the khata to be registered in the name of the person who claims to have obtained the right over the property under the compromise decree. 9. In my view, these orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahasildar are quashed. 10. Since, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have instituted another suit in O.S. No.58 of 2022 in which they are challenging the compromise decree, the authorities would not be entitled to change the Khata on the basis of the compromise decree which is the subject matter of a challenge. 11. It is therefore necessary that until the suit in O.S. No.58 of 2022 is adjudicated by the competent civil court, the khata shall continue to stand jointly in the name of Abdul Samad Sab and Khatijabi as per the order on 29.06.1992. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:756 WP No. 10658 of 2023 12. It is needless to state that the registration of khata shall be ultimately subject to the result of the aforementioned suit in O.S. No.58 of 2022. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS/RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69