- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5684 WP No. 19044 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 19044 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOPAMMA W/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT GERUPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BYRANAHALLI POST MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.G. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE SITUATED AT M.S. BUILDING NEAR K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE SECRETARY THORANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. 3. THE TALUK EXECUTIVE OFFICER (E.O) TALUK PANCHAYATH MALUR Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5684 WP No. 19044 of 2021 MALUR TALUK, MALUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. 4. SRI H. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT: GERUPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M. NARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.07.2021 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING OLD KANESHUMARI NO.15, NEW NO.15AB/2/111 CONSISTING OF STONES ROOFED HOUSE AND MANGALURU TITLE ROOFED HOUSE MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF EAST TO WEST 55 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 47 FEET SITUATED AT GERUPARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. By the impugned order, respondent No.3— Panchayat has directed the Khata which was standing in the name of the petitioner to be - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5684 WP No. 19044 of 2021 cancelled and hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 who made a claim over this property had instituted a suit in O.S. No.385 of 2013, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court and an appeal filed against it in R.A. No.9 of 2015 has also been dismissed, though for non-prosecution. It is therefore clear that the claim of respondent No.4 over the said property is prima facie untenable. 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 however submits that the suit was for injunction and therefore nothing much can be read into dismissal of the suit. 4. Since the Khata was standing in the name of the petitioner, the same will have to be restored in favour of the petitioner and if respondent No.4 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5684 WP No. 19044 of 2021 were to file a comprehensive suit, seeking for a declaratory decree and obtains such a decree, then obviously the said decree would bind both the parties. 5. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. 6. The Khata shall stand restored in the name of the petitioner. It is however made clear that it would be subject to any declaratory decree that may be passed by the Civil Court in respect of the property in question against the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17