- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 20015 OF 2022 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI THYAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT OLD KHANESHUMARI NO.59 NEW KHANESHUMARI NO.58, DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562106 2. SRI.T.RAVI S/O SRI D.R.THYAGARAJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR SRI RANGANATHASWAMY TEMPLE, DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VARUN NAIR VIVEK., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. PARVATHY R NAIR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE TALUK EXECUTIVE OFFICER NEAR JMFC COURT ATTIBELE ROAD ANEKAL TOWN Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 BENGALURU-562106 3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DOMMASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DOMMASANDRA ANEKAL TAUK BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU-562106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. M.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. R.S.PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DTD 21.06.2022 AND LETTER NO.DO.G.P/01/2022-23 ISSUED BY R3 ANNEXURE-Q AND LETTER DATED 20.05.2022 AND LETTER NO.AA.TA.P/GRAMA/285/2021-22, ISSUED BY R2 ANNEXURE-R AND DIRECT R3 TO ISSUE KHATA CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONERS BY GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2022 ISSUED BY R2 ANNEXURE-N, ETC. 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. These facts are not in dispute: 2. The Secretary of Dommasandra Gram Panchayat instituted a suit in O.S.No.407/2006 seeking for a declaration that the suit property therein belonged to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 the Gram Panchayat and the villagers were making use of the said suit property for the purpose of performing social, cultural activities etc. The said suit was filed against the petitioner herein. 3. The said suit was contested and after considering all the evidence adduced before it, the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 17.01.2009 dismissed the suit thereby negativing the claim of the Gram Panchayat that the suit property belonged to it. This dismissal of the suit was not challenged by the Gram Panchayat and has thus attained finality. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.3831/2020 seeking for quashing of the endorsement dated 28.11.2019, whereby the request of his to register the Khatha in his name was declined by the Panchayat Development Officer. This Court after hearing the Panchayat passed an order on 22.09.2021 in the following terms: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 “9. The claim of the petitioner is that, the open space which lies next to the property of the aforesaid Muniyappa belongs to him and he has all the requisite documents in justification of his claim. The claim of the second respondent that the property belongs to the Panchayat as it is a open space and being used for the activities of the residents of the Panchayat for all purpose, cannot be claimed as a private property of the petitioner. 10. It is also germane to notice that the suit filed by the Panchayat against the petitioner in O.S.No.407/2006, is dismissed and has become final. Therefore, the claim and counter claim on the property is required to be resolved. Submission of any representation or consideration of the claim of the petitioner at the hands of the second respondent - the PDO cannot be the remedy that would be available in the peculiar facts of this case to the petitioner, since the claim for the open space is by the second respondent - the PDO of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, in my considered view the dispute has to be resolved by the higher Authority than that of the second respondent, which would be the Taluk Executive Officer. 11. Therefore, the Taluk Executive Officer shall consider the case of both the petitioner and the second respondent, without being influenced by the endorsement issued by the second respondent or any other communication against the petitioner by the Panchayat and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, on a decision being taken after examining all the documents placed by the respective parties. 12. No action detrimental to the interest of the petitioner in respect of his khata shall be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 issued/passed by the second respondent as the issue is with regard to the vacant site and not the residential house, in which the petitioner resides. Therefore, the possession of the residential house shall not be disturbed. 13. The Taluk Executive Officer shall comply with the direction mentioned hereinabove, within six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order. 14. Since, the Taluk Executive Officer is not a party to these proceedings, the Government - first respondent on receipt of the certified copy of this Order, shall forthwith issue such communication enclosing a copy of this Order to the Taluk Executive Officer of the jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in compliance with the aforesaid directions. 15. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed”. 5. Pursuant to this order, the Taluk Panchayat Officer issued an official memorandum dated 13.01.2022 and ordered the khata to be registered in the name of the petitioner. This order has been recalled by a subsequent order dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure – R), which is impugned in this writ petition, which reads as follows: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 ““““ಾಲೂಕು ಾಲೂಕು ಾಲೂಕು ಾಲೂಕು ಪಂಾ ಪಂಾ ಪಂಾ ಪಂಾ ಾಾಲಯ ಾಾಲಯ ಾಾಲಯ ಾಾಲಯ ಆೇಕ ಆೇಕ ಆೇಕ ಆೇಕ ೆೆೆೆ.ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ.ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ..ೋ ೋ ೋ ೋ ಹ ರ ಹ ರ ಹ ರ ಹ ರ, ಅ ೆ!ೆ ಅ ೆ!ೆ ಅ ೆ!ೆ ಅ ೆ!ೆ ರ"ೆ ರ"ೆ ರ"ೆ ರ"ೆ, ಆೇಕ ಆೇಕ ಆೇಕ ಆೇಕ #ೌ% #ೌ% #ೌ% #ೌ%, ೆಂಗಳ(ರು ೆಂಗಳ(ರು ೆಂಗಳ(ರು ೆಂಗಳ(ರು-562106 Phone No: 080 27859232 E-mail:eotpanekala@rediffmail.com ¸ÀASÉå:-D.vÁ.¥ÀA/UÁæ¥ÀAC/285/2021-22 ¢£ÁAPÀ:-20.05.2022 ರವ+,ೆ, ಪಂಾ ಅ-ವೃ/0 ಅ1ಾ+ 2ೊಮ4ಸಂದ7 ,ಾ7ಮ ಪಂಾ ಸಾಪ8ರ 9ೋಬ;, ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆಂಗಳ(ರು ನಗರ =!ೆ. >ಾನ?@ೇ, Aಷಯ:- 2ೊಮ4ಸಂದ7 ,ಾ7ಮದ ಸC ನ ಹDೇ Eಾೇಷು>ಾ+ ನಂ.59, 9ೊಸ Eಾೇಷು>ಾ+ ನಂ.58, ಸC ನ +ಯ ನಂ.103, ಸC ನ ನಂ.58 ೆF >ಾನ? ಉಚIಾ?ಾಲಯದ ಆ2ೇಶದಂೆ ಕ7ಮವKಸುವ ಬ,ೆL. ಉ!ೇಖ:- 1 >ಾನ? ಕಾಟಕ ಉಚIಾ?ಾಲಯದ ಪ7ಕರಣ ಸಂEೆ?: W.P.No. 3831 of 2020(LB-RES), ¢£ÁAPÀ:22.09.2021. 2 ಈ ಕQೇ+ಯ ಅ1ಕೃತ Sಾಪನ ಪvÀæದ ಸಂEೆ?:285/2021-22 ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.01.2022. **** TೕಲFಂಡ AಷಯೆF ಸಂಬಂ1ದಂೆ, ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು, ಸಾಪ8ರ 9ೋಬ;, 2ೊಮ4ಸಂದ7 ,ಾ7ಮ ಪಂಾ Vಾ?Wಯ 2ೊಮ4ಸಂದ7 ,ಾ7ಮದ ಸC ನ ಹDೇ Eಾೇಷು>ಾ+ ನಂಬX.59, 9ೊಸ Eಾೇಷು>ಾ+ ನಂ.58, ಸC ನ +ಯ ನಂ.103, ಸC ನ 58 ಸC ,ೆ ಸಂಬಂ1ದಂೆ ಉ!ೇಖ (2) ರ ಪತ7ದY 9ೊರZರುವ ಅ1ಕೃತ Sಾಪನ ಪತ7ವನು[ Kಂಪ\ೆಯ!ಾ]2ೆ. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 ಸದ+ ಸC ,ೆ >ಾನ? ಕಾಟಕ ಉಚIಾ?ಾಲಯದ ಪ7ಕರಣ ಸಂEೆ?: W.P.No.3831 of 2020(LB-RES), /ಾಂಕ:22.09.2021 ರಂದು ಆ]ರುವ ಅಂ ಮ ಆ2ೇಶದಂೆ ^ಯ>ಾನು"ಾರ ಾನೂನು ಸಲ9ೆ ಪ\ೆದುೊಂಡು, ಅಗತ? ಕ7ಮೈ,ೊಳ`ಲು ಸೂa2ೆ. ತಮ4 AbಾC¹ ಾಯ^Vಾಹಕ ಅ1ಾ+ ಾಲೂಕು ಪಂಾ ಆೇಕ” 6. On the basis of this order, an endorsement (Annexure – Q) has been issued by the Gram Panchayat in the following terms: “zÉƪÀÄä¸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ ¸ÀeÁð¥ÀÄgÀ ºÉÆç½, D£ÉÃPÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè ¸ÀASÉå:-zÉÆ.UÁæ.¥ÀA/01/2022-23 ¢£ÁAPÀ:21.06.2022. -:»A§gÀºÀ:- ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು ಸಾಪ8ರ 9ೋಬ;, 2ೊಮ4ಸಂದ7 ,ಾ7ಮದ Vಾಾದ d7ೕ ರA e f% Z.ಆX ಾ?ಗ@ಾg @ೆZh ರವ+,ೆ ;ಯ ಪZಸುವ82ೇೆಂದ@ೆ, ಸC ನ ಕ7ಮ ಸಂEೆ?:103 Eಾೆಷು>ಾ+ ಸಂEೆ?:58, ಹDೆ ನಂ.59 ರ ಅಳೆ >ಾಡಲು ಅ= ^ೕZರುವ ಬ,ೆL ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು ಪಂಾ ಯ ಾಯ^Vಾಹ ಅ1ಾ+ಯವರು Eಾೆ >ಾಡಲು ಆ2ೇಶ ^ೕZದುi ಸದ+ ಆ2ೇಶವನು[ >ಾನ? ಾಯ^Vಾಹಕ ಅ1ಾ+ಗಳj ಾಲೂಕು ಪಂಾ ರವರು ಸದ+ ಆ2ೇಶವನು[ Kಂಪ\ೆ/ರುಾ@ೆ. ಆದi+ಂದ ತಮ4 Eಾೆಯನು[ A!ೇ ಇಡ!ಾ]ದುi ಸದ+ ಾಯ^Vಾಹಕ - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 ಅ1ಾ+ ರವರ ಮುಂ/ನ ಆ2ೇಶದಂೆ ಕ7ಮವKಸುವ82ಾ] ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ,ೆ ;2ೆ.” 7. It is therefore clear that an order passed by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat on merits holding that the petitioner was entitled to be registered as a Khatedar has been withdrawn without notice to the petitioner and without assigning any reasons in the order that is impugned. The Executive Officer has gone on to opine that the Panchayat would have to take a decision after securing the legal opinion on the order that has passed in W.P.No.3831/2020 to which it was a party and on the basis of this, the impugned endorsement is issued. 8. Once the Executive Officer had passed an order on merits upholding the claim of the petitioner and registering him as the khatedar and that too on the basis of an order passed by this Court, it is simply impermissible for the Executive Office to recall the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 same. In fact there is absolutely no reason assigned for recalling the order that he had passed on merits pursuant to an order of this Court. The further direction of the Executive Officer to secure an opinion and thereafter take a decision is prima facie, in my view is contumacious. 9. Be that as it may, since an order was passed on merits holding that the khata ought to be registered in the name of the petitioner, the subsequent order is wholly without jurisdiction and the same will have to be quashed. Consequently Annexure – R and the consequential endorsement Annexure – Q also quashed. 10. As a consequence, the Gram Panchayat is directed to register the khata in favour of the petitioner, if not already registered as per the official memorandum dated 13.01.2022 within a period of two weeks from today. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3694 WP No. 20015 of 2022 11. In my view, since the Executive Officer has acted illegally and without even notifying the parties withdrawn an order that he has passed on merits, he would be liable to pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) payable to KIDWAI Institute of Oncology. 12. This petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3