- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1798 WP No. 17433 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 17433 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JANAKAMMA W/O H V KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT HELEPETE HULIYURUDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADINARAYANAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123. 2. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HULIYURUDURGA PANCHAYATH HULYURURDURGA KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.C.BALARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1798 WP No. 17433 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF R1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT IN V.P.C.NO.36/2020-21/716 AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.08.2021 PASSED IN V.P.C.NO.36/2020-21/716 PASSED BY THE R1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC. 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 petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2021, Annexure ‘A’, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of khata in his favor in respect of the property bearing Janjar No.1168/2 and property No.1870/2 has been rejected on the ground that no documents are produced to show that the petitioner had paid the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1798 WP No. 17433 of 2021 upset price and had not produced the original documents relating to the said property. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question was assessed and the name of the petitioner was also included in the assessment list, as could be seen from Annexure ‘B'. 3. He also submits that the petitioner had in fact paid Rs.25,000/- being the upset price as per Annexure “J”, but the said documents have not been considered. 4. Since the impugned order does not indicate that the petitioner has produced the assessment list and the receipt for having paid the upset price, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to respondent No.1 and permit the petitioner to produce all the documents that are in her possession to establish her claim. 5. Ordered accordingly. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1798 WP No. 17433 of 2021 6. Respondent No.1 shall consider the documents that will be produced by the petitioner and thereafter pass orders afresh, in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56