- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8770 WP No. 30604 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 30604 OF 2015 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHRUTHI SAMPATHKUMAR W/O SAMPATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O BHIMEENAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT PIN-562109 2. S.SAMPATHKUMAR W/O SHYAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O BHIMEENAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT PIN-562109 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P N RAJESWARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER RAMANAGARAM TALUK PANCHAYATH, NO.6, 2ND FLOOR, MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, RAMANAGARA-562 109. 2. MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH B.M.ROAD, OPP:HANUMAN TEMPLE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT PIN-562109 REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 3. THE SECRETARY MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8770 WP No. 30604 of 2015 B.M.ROAD, OPP: HANUMAN TEMPLE, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT PIN:562109 4. SRI MADHAVA REDDY S/O PICHHAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.161, 10TH CROSS, 17TH BLOCK, LIC APARTMENT, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B J SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; NOTICE TO R-4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED:25.04.2014 AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER SITE NO.129, 130, 131, & 132 PF PISA LAYOUT, FORMED IN SY NO.41 & 43 OF BHIMENAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8770 WP No. 30604 of 2015 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed challenging the order by which the khatha which was registered in the name of Madhava Reddy, the vendor of the petitioners has been cancelled. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased the properties from Madhava Reddy under four Sale Deeds dated 29.01.2008, 24.01.2009, 14.09.2011 and 26.04.2012. It is the further case of the petitioners that pursuant to the Sale Deeds, the khatha was also registered in the name of the petitioners as evidenced from Annexures-F1 to F4, but despite the fact that the khatha was standing in the name of the petitioners, the impugned order was passed without even making them a party to the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent contends that as on the date the Executive Officer passed the impugned order, the names of the petitioners were - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8770 WP No. 30604 of 2015 not found in the register and only the name of Madhava Reddy was found and hence, notice was issued only to Madhava Reddy. 4. In light of the fact that Annexures-F2 to F4 which indicate that the name of Madhava Reddy was rounded off and the name of the petitioners were entered, the impugned order cannot be sustained because it has been passed without hearing the petitioners. 5. It must also be noticed here that the petitioners are claiming the title to the properties under four Sale Deeds and therefore, it would be imperative to the respondent- authorities to provide opportunity to the petitioners before passing any order. 6. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-A is quashed. Liberty is, however, reserved to the Panchayat to issue notice to the petitioners, consider their objections, afford them an opportunity of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8770 WP No. 30604 of 2015 hearing and thereafter pass appropriate order with regard to entering their names in the khatha. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64