- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48930 WP No. 299 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 299 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SINGH S/O LATE B.G. HARI SINGH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O BHVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MARLU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YADUNANDAN N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. ZILLA PANCHAYATH KOLAR, REPRESENETED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KOLAR-CHIKKABALLAPUR ROAD KOLAR - 563 101. 3. TALUKA PANCHAYATH MALUR Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48930 WP No. 299 of 2025 REPRSENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER MARUTHI EXTENSION, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130. 4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ABBENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130. 5. B.N. SUDHASINGH S/O NARAYAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O DOOR NO. 432, 94TH COSS KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGLAURU - 560 078. 6. SRI. BALAJISINGH S/O LATE SURAJ BAANSINGH R/AT BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE MALUR TLAUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130. 7. SRI. KUBER SINGH S/O LATE SURAJ BAANSINGH R/AT BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130. 8. SRI. SHANKAR SINGH S/O LATE SURAJ BAANSINGH R/AT BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTIRCT - 563 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R6 TO R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48930 WP No. 299 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2024 PASSED BY R-3 IN APPEAL NO. THA.PAN.MA.GPA/11/2019-20 AS PER ANNX-H AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24.10.2024 passed by respondent No.3 in Appeal No.Tha.Pan.Ma.GPA/11/2-19-20 (Annexure H). He has also sought for writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to restore the katha made out in his name in respect of the property described in the schedule to the petition. 2. The petitioner contends that one Smt. Geetha Bai was the owner of the property No.151900801300500037, V.P. Katha No.4/18 of Bhavanahalli Village lying within the limits of Abbenahalli Grama Panchayath, Kasba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, she having derived it in terms of a gift deed dated 21.01.2014 executed by the respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein. The name of the said Smt. Geetha Bai was entered in the property register maintained by the respondent No.4 and an e-katha - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48930 WP No. 299 of 2025 was also issued in respect of the said property. Later the said Smt. Geetha Bai sold the property to the petitioner herein in terms of a sale deed dated 13.01.2022 and that the name of the petitioner was entered in the e-property register maintained by the respondent No.4. Petitioner contends that when things stood thus, he came to know about a suit filed by the respondent No. 5 herein in O.S. No. 87/2015, which was decreed. Thereafter R.A. No.32/2018 was filed by the respondents No.6 to 8. He also came to know that the respondent No. 5 had initiated proceedings against respondent Nos. 6, to 8 challenging the khata that was made out in their names in respect of the property mentioned above. He contends that the respondent No.3 without noticing the fact that the katha of the property already stood in the name of Smt. Geetha Bai, proceeded to decide the dispute in the absence of Smt. Geetha Bai and directed the name of the respondent No.5 to be incorporated in the katha in respect of the property in question. The petitioner contends that as a result of the impugned order the katha of the property that now stands in the name of the petitioner is sought to be replaced by the name of the name of the respondent No.5. He therefore - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48930 WP No. 299 of 2025 contends that the petitioner is condemned unheard by the respondent No. 3 and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent No. 3 did not even verify the katha of the property as on the date the petition was filed before him and he blindly proceeded on the assertions made by the respondent No. 5 in the appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 contends that the respondent No.5 is the owner of the property in question and that he had filed a suit in O.S. No.87/2015 against the respondent Nos.6 to 8 for perpetual injunction and that the said suit after contest was decreed on 26.06.2018. He admits that an appeal is filed by the respondent Nos.6 to 8 in RA No. 32/2018 and the same is pending consideration. He submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent - Smt. Geetha Bai had conveyed the property to the petitioner and hence the said conveyance is hit by lis pendens. He contends that since the suit is now decreed, the katha of the property has to be transferred to the name of the respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48930 WP No. 299 of 2025 No.5 and the respondent No.3 has precisely done that. He therefore prays that the petition be dismissed and the order passed by respondent No.3 be given effect to. 5. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. It appears from the records produced in the writ petition that the respondents No.6 to 8 had executed a gift deed dated 21.01.2014 in favour of Smt. Geetha Bai and based on the said gift deed, the katha of the property was transferred to the name of Smt. Geetha Bai in the year 2015. The said Geetha Bai sold the property to the petitioner on 13.01.2022 and the katha of the property is transferred to the name of the petitioner on 05.03.2022. In the proceedings initiated by respondent No.5 before respondent No.3 in the year 2019, the respondent No.5 ought to have arrayed Smt. Geetha Bai as a respondent. The respondent No. 3 instead has arrayed the respondent Nos.6 to 8 as parties before the respondent No.3. The respondent Nos.6 to 8 did not contest the proceedings before the respondent No.3, resulting in the respondent No.3 passing the impugned order setting aside the katha of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48930 WP No. 299 of 2025 property in question that stood in the name of the respondent Nos.6 to 8 and directed restoration of the katha in the name of the respondent No.5. This was primarily based on the decree passed in OS No. 87/2015. 7. It is not in dispute that the decree passed in OS No.87/2015 is under examination in RA No.32/2018. Therefore, on all counts, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 deserves to be interfered as the impugned order has a consequence of setting aside the katha which is made out in the name of the petitioner and his predecessor in title. 8. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by respondent No.3 in Appeal No.Tha.Pan.Ma.GPA/11/2-19-20 (Annexure H) is set aside. The proceedings before the respondent No.3 is restored. The respondent No.3 shall direct impleadment of the petitioner herein as one of the respondents and thereafter consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48930 WP No. 299 of 2025 9. In order to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the appeal, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.3 on 18.12.2025 at 03.00 p.m. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30