1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.18659 OF 2025 (LB - RES) BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. B.N. PUNEETH S/O B.L. NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR SHRI SHANKARESHWARA TEMPLE MUDIGERE ROAD, BELUR TLAUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573115. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SKANDA .R.K RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D C OFFICE, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201. 3 . THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICPAL COUNCIL MUNISICIPAL COUNCIL OFFICE 2 BELURU HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115. 4 . SRI. B.L. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE B. LAKKEGOWDA CARE OF SRI. BALAKRISHNA GENERAL MERCHANT RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR CIRCLE MUDIGERE ROAD, BELURU HASSAN DISTRICT-573115. 5 . TERRIOTORY MANAGER BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION BEHIND FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA METAGHALLI, MYSORE-570 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.S.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI. H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 PASSED IN MUNCI(2) C.R.NYA.PRA/14/2024-25 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 UNDER SECTION 322(1) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 AT ANNEXURE-R AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM 3 CAV ORDER This petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed in No.MUNCI(2) C.R.NYA.PRA/14/2024-25 by the respondent No.2, wherein respondent No.1 while allowing the revision filed under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 has ordered to cancel the katha standing in the name of the petitioner with respect to the schedule property and consequently, respondent No.3 has cancelled the katha standing in the name of petitioner. The order impugned at Annexure-R is under challenge. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of this petition is property bearing Sy.No.84/2 totally measuring 2 acres 31 guntas. Petitioner claims that an extent measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas is owned by grandfather of the petitioner and an extent of 1 acre 15.08 guntas is the self-acquired property of his father, B.L. Ningegowda. Petitioner is asserting absolute title on the basis 4 of registered gift deed executed by his father, while respondent No.4 is asserting that the additional extent of 1 acre 15.08 guntas purchased in the name of petitioner's father is also joint family ancestral property. 3. While entertaining the revision petition filed by respondent No.4, respondent No.2 has arrived at a conclusion that the petition property is joint family ancestral property. Placing reliance on the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.31/2013, respondent No.2 concluded that the petition property was also the subject matter of the said decree. Observing that specific shares had been allotted to various family members under the compromise, respondent No.2 proceeded to cancel the katha in favour of the petitioner under the impugned order. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on two primary grounds. Firstly, the revision petition filed by respondent No.4 was entertained 5 despite being grossly delayed and without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay. Secondly, by drawing attention to the order passed by this Court in MFA.No.7249/2024, it is submitted that the temporary injunction earlier granted in favour of respondent No.4 was set aside by this Court vide order dated *13.12.2024. It is further contended that the petitioner has derived title to the property under a registered gift deed. Therefore, respondent No.4, having already called into question the said gift deed by instituting O.S.No.*46/2024, could not have simultaneously approached respondent No.2 by invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. 5. Referring to the conversion order, the sketch furnished, the NOC issued by the Deputy Commissioner for the construction of a petrol bunk, the approved layout plan, and the communication issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited dated 23.05.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner has * Corrected vide court order dated 18.07.2025 6 clearly acted in excess of his jurisdiction. It is submitted that cancellation of katha during the pendency of the civil suit filed by respondent No.4 amounts to prejudging the validity of the registered gift deed, which is under challenge in O.S.No. *46/2024. Therefore, it is contended that the Deputy Commissioner could not have cancelled the katha unilaterally and prematurely, particularly when title is sub judice before a competent Civil Court. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, by placing reliance on the very same documents, strongly relies on the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.31/2013. He submits that the property measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas purchased by the propositus and an equivalent extent purchased by the petitioner's father both form part of Sy.No.84/2 and are joint family ancestral properties. It is contended that these extents were indeed the subject matter of the earlier suit in O.S.No.31/2013 and, under the terms of the compromise decree, specific shares were allotted to the petitioner, respondent No.4, and other co- * Corrected vide court order dated 18.07.2025 7 parceners. Therefore, it is urged that the registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner is a fraudulent document, which seeks to alter the character of the joint family property. On this premise, learned Senior Counsel submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. The Court has also carefully perused the records, including the impugned orders and the judgments annexed to the writ petition. 8. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the contents of the compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.31/2013. Clause (1) of the said compromise decree reads as under: "zÁªÁ C£ÀĸÀÄa D¹ÛUÀ¼À LlA £ÀA. 1 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 84/2, LlA £ÀA. 2 ¸À.£ÀA. 85, LlA £ÀA§gï 09 ¸À.£ÀA. 85 «¹ÛÃtð PÀæªÀĪÁV 1 JPÀgÉ, 3-11 UÀÄAmÉ, 1-00 JPÀgÉ MlÄÖ 5-11 JPÀgÉ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ¯Á 30.14 8 UÀÄAmÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¨Á®PÀȵÀÚ, ©¯ÉèÃUËqÀ, ªÀÄAeÉÃUËqÀ, ¤AUÉÃUËqÀ, gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ, zsÀªÉÄÃðUËqÀ ºÁUÀÆ UÉÆÃ¥Á®, EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀĪÁV ºÀAaPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ." 9. On a plain reading of the extracted portion of the compromise decree in O.S.No.31/2013, what clearly emerges is that Item No.1, i.e., land bearing Sy.No.84/2 measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas, was directed to be equally divided among the family members. However, in respect of another extent of land also measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas in the very same survey number Sy.No.84/2, which is stated to have been purchased by the petitioner's father, there is no express reference in the compromise decree indicating whether this portion too formed part of the suit schedule or was subject to partition under the said compromise. This creates a degree of ambiguity regarding the inclusion of the property purchased by the petitioner's father in the compromise settlement recorded in O.S.No.31/2013. 10. This Court also finds it necessary to extract the relief sought by the petitioner in O.S.No.*46/2024, wherein * Corrected vide court order dated 18.07.2025 9 the validity of the gift deed is under challenge. The prayer column of the plaint reads as follows: "Wherefore for the foregoing reasons the plaintiffs prays for the judgment and decree of a) Declaration in their favour and against the defendants, thereby declaring that the alleged Gift deed 11/2/2022 and change of katha in respect of the suit schedule properties, is/are not binding upon the right, shares of the plaintiffs as per the Compromise decree in OS 31/2013, and b) Permanent injunction, thereby restraining the defendants and their men and agents etc., from constructing any sort of structure or from interfering or from encroaching the right, share and possession of the plaintiffs or from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties or from obstructing or from causing any nuisance or from doing any tortuous acts with the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties of the plaintiffs, and b) Further prays for court costs and expenses and also prays for such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity and justice." 10 11. A plain reading of the extracted prayer in the plaint filed in O.S.No.*46/2024 clearly reveals that respondent No.4 has directly challenged the validity of the gift deed dated 11.02.2022. The relief sought includes a declaration that the said gift deed is not binding on respondent No.4’s share as per the terms of the compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.31/2013. Additionally, respondent No.4 has also sought consequential relief by way of a permanent injunction. In light of this admitted factual position, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, despite being cognizant of the pendency of the said civil litigation, could have ventured into adjudicating the character of the property and the rights of the parties therein, particularly in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. 12. It is a well-settled principle of law, reiterated in several decisions of this Court, that when katha is issued * Corrected vide court order dated 18.07.2025 11 pursuant to a registered document such as a sale deed, gift deed, or partition deed and if the validity of such registered document is subsequently called into question in a civil suit, the revenue or municipal authorities must refrain from undertaking any inquiry or adjudication touching upon title or ownership. Their role is limited to maintaining revenue records and municipal registers and not to decide upon civil disputes involving complex issues of title, especially when such issues are already sub judice before a competent Civil Court. Therefore, the act of respondent No.2 in entertaining the revision filed by respondent No.4 and proceeding to cancel the katha on the assumption that the gift deed is fraudulent amounts to a clear transgression of jurisdiction and is contrary to the settled position of law. 13. Furthermore, Rule 6 of the Karnataka Municipal (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1967, clearly prescribes that a revision under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act must be filed within 30 days from the date of the impugned order. In the instant case, the gift deed is dated 11.02.2022, 12 and the katha was issued in favour of the petitioner on 27.12.2023. The revision petition under Section 322 was admittedly filed much beyond the stipulated period of 30 days. It is an established principle of law that any delay in filing an appeal or revision beyond the prescribed period must be accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, supported by sufficient cause. 14. In the present case, the records unequivocally disclose that respondent No.4 has not filed any such application seeking condonation of delay. Despite this procedural lapse, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner has entertained and adjudicated the belated revision on merits. This conduct is in clear breach of settled legal principles and renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. Even on the ground of maintainability, the revision ought to have been rejected in limine. 13 15. This Court has also taken note of the material records placed by the petitioner, which further reinforce his claim of independent title and possession. Significantly, the survey number in dispute i.e Sy.No.84/2 has since been renumbered as Sy.No.84/3, as evidenced by official revenue records. The conversion order secured by the petitioner, which demarcates the converted portion and situates the land forming part of the compromise decree (Item No.1 in O.S.No.31/2013) towards the eastern boundary, further supports the petitioner's assertion that the gifted property is distinct and not the subject matter of the said compromise. Additional documents such as the katha certificate in the petitioner’s name, technical approval from the Town Planning Authority, NOC dated 13.08.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner for construction of a petrol bunk, approved layout plan, and a letter issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited dated 23.05.2025 addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer for issuance of completion and 14 occupancy certificates, along with photographs, collectively establish that the petitioner is in lawful possession and has acted upon the gift deed. These facts were also taken into consideration by this Court while allowing the appeal in MFA.No.7249/2024, wherein the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court was reversed. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the cumulative effect of the legal and factual position, this Court is of the considered view that the Deputy Commissioner has grossly exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining a belated revision and venturing into issues relating to title, which are pending adjudication before the Civil Court in O.S.No.*46/2024. The impugned order not only suffers from procedural irregularities but is also legally unsustainable as it amounts to pre-judging the validity of a registered document, which only a competent Civil Court can decide. The power under Section 322 is a limited supervisory jurisdiction meant for correction of patent errors in municipal records and not for adjudication of civil disputes involving complicated questions * Corrected vide court order dated 18.07.2025 15 of title. The impugned action of respondent No.2 is therefore arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed. It is reiterated that once a katha is issued based on a registered deed, such katha cannot be cancelled unless the said document is declared invalid by a competent Court of law. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, vide Annexure-R, is hereby quashed and set aside; (iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the katha records pertaining to property bearing No.20-*5-361, situated in Ward No.16, Beluru Taluk, forming part of Sy.No.84/3 of Beluru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan District; * Corrected vide court order dated 18.07.2025 16 (iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA