- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3199 WP No. 36451 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 36451 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MANJULA BAI W/O. LATE SRI. RANOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SRI. NAGESH RAO R. S/O. LATE SRI. RANOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R. S/O. LATE SRI. RANOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE R/A. MANDUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 049. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 078. 2. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO) MANDUR VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3199 WP No. 36451 of 2024 BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 077. 3. SMT SUJATHA P V W/O SRI BATTEGOWDA A AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A C/O SRI K S HARISH 4TH CROSS NEAR CHIKKA MARAMMA TEMPLE, KURUBARAPET HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B J SOMAYAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2; SRI. M.VINAYA KEERTHY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 01.10.2024 (HOWEVER SIGNED ON 26.11.2024) IN APPEAL NO. BEN.PU.THA.PAM.APPEALU/CR/9/2023-24 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, 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. This petition is filed challenging the order (Annexure ‘G’) passed by the Executive Officer by which the khata standing in the name of the petitioners’ father has been ordered to be cancelled and the claim of respondent No.3 to enter her name - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3199 WP No. 36451 of 2024 on the basis of the sale deed is ordered to be considered. 2. It is not in dispute that prior to the passing of the impugned order, the Khatha was standing in the name of the father of the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 however submits that the Khatha was only in respect of one particular year, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the revenue records and other records which indicate that the name of the petitioners’ father was in the records from the year 1994. 4. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that respondent No.3 has instituted a suit in O.S. No.1042 of 2021, which was initially filed seeking for a decree of injunction but subsequently, by filing an application, relief of declaration is also sought for and the same is pending consideration. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3199 WP No. 36451 of 2024 5. It is also to be noticed here that the proceedings before the Executive Officer was initiated in the year 2023-24 i.e., much after the suit had been filed in 2021. 6. In that view of the matter, in my view, since respondent No.3 had already approached the Civil Court and had staked a claim to be declared as the owner, it would not be proper to sustain the order of the Executive Officer, by which the Khata standing in the name of petitioners’ father was cancelled, and the same will have to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the 1st respondent / Executive Officer (Annexure ‘G’) is quashed and it is made clear that the Executive Officer and the Panchayat shall abide by the result of the suit in O.S. No.1042 of 2021 filed by respondent No.3 herein. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3199 WP No. 36451 of 2024 8. It is needless to state that depending on the outcome of the said suit, the Khatas will be registered. 9. It is also open for respondent No.3 to seek for appropriate interim reliefs in the pending suit. 10. Having regard to the fact that the property in question is the subject matter of litigation since 2021, it would be appropriate to direct the Civil Court in which O.S. No.1042 of 2021 is pending to expeditiously dispose of the suit and ensure that the suit is disposed of within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68