- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.609/2023 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: VENKATAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT SADAPANAHALLI VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL-562129. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUVA REDDY N, ADV.,) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT CHAPPARADAKALLU DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GIDDAPPANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 5. THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, III FLOOR D WING KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. 6. S.M. JAYARAMAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT SADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE SULEBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADV., FOR R3 & R4 SRI. TIMMANNA BHAT, CGC FOR R5 SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADV., FOR R6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. No.32981/2013 (LB-RES) BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN W.P. No.32981/2013 & ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32981/2013 (LB-RES). 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent No.6 filed a writ petition challenging the letter dated 04.07.2013 of the respondent No.3, order dated 10.07.2013 in M.R.No.3/2013-14 by the respondent No.4 and the assessment register on the ground that the name of the respondent No.6 in the revenue records was cancelled based on the communication dated 25.06.2013 issued by the respondent No.5, without providing him an opportunity of hearing. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders and observed that it is open for the parties to approach the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 Civil Court to establish their right over the property in question. Being aggrieved, the appellant who was the respondent No.6 in the writ proceedings has filed this appeal. 3. Sri.Guruva Reddy N., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was not arrayed as a party in the writ proceedings but was later impleaded. It is submitted that the brother-in-law of the appellant i.e. Sri.Ramanjini filed a writ petition in W.P.No.37304/2013 seeking to quash the endorsement dated 20.07.2013 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, who declined to effect the khata on the ground that both the family of the appellant and the writ petitioner-S.M.Jayaramappa were claiming khata in respect of the same property and the dispute is pending in R.A.No.110/2012. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Authorities to transfer the khata in the name of Sri.Narayanaswamy. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the effect of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 the order dated 17.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.37304/2013 and in view of the said order, the name of the appellant is required to be continued in the revenue records. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Smt.Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4, Sri.Timmanna Bhat, learned Central Government counsel for the respondent No.5 and Sri.Vijaya Krishna Bhat M, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 support the impugned order and submit that the learned Single Judge has only set aside the order of cancellation of khata standing in the name of the respondent No.6 but has observed that it is open for the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their right over the property in question. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6, learned Central Government counsel for the respondent No.5 and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 6. The respondent No.6 filed a writ petition contending that the property bearing Khaneshumari No.14, khata No.137 measuring East to West 9 yards and North to South 16 yards situated at Yethinavadeyarapura Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, was purchased by Munishamappa, the father of the respondent No.6 under a registered sale deed dated 10.09.1971 and from the date of purchase, the father of the respondent No.6 and their family were in physical possession and enjoyment of the property. It is averred that after the death of Munishamappa, there was a family - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 arrangement on 11.06.1993 and the property was allotted to the share of the respondent No.6 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is further averred that the name of the respondent No.6 was not entered in the Gram Panchayat records and they have issued an endorsement on 03.01.2000 on the ground that there is a dispute and thereafter, the khata was effected in his name and taxes were collected. It is also averred that the appellant's family attempted to interfere with the physical possession of the respondent No.6 who filed a suit which came to be decreed on 04.09.2012 and the defendants in the said suit preferred an appeal in R.A.No.110/2012 which is pending adjudication. It is contended that during the pendency of the civil proceedings, the appellant approached the respondent No.5 to enter his name in the revenue records and based on such a representation, the respondent No.5 sent a communication dated 25.06.2013 to the respondent No.2 requesting to take immediate steps to rectify and issue the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 khata in the name of the appellant. Based on such a communication, the respondent No.3 issued a memorandum dated 04.07.2013 directing the respondent No.4 to cancel the khata standing in the name of the respondent No.6 and enter the name of the appellant. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the name of the respondent No.6 has been removed and appellant's name has been entered. It is not in dispute that the said exercise carried out by the respondent Nos.5 and 3 was without jurisdiction. Admittedly, the removal of the name of the respondent No.6 from the revenue records and inclusion of the name of the appellant is without providing any opportunity to the respondent No.6. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the same has recorded a clear finding that the action of the respondent-authorities in recommending deletion of the name of the respondent No.6 from the revenue records and in entering the name of the appellant is without authority of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. We do not find any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 error in the said finding. Insofar as the contention with regard to the order in W.P.No.37304/2013 passed by this Court, the said aspect is also considered by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the impugned order and the orders under challenge were set aside. The learned Single Judge has clearly recorded a finding that the parties are required to adjudicate before a competent Civil Court with regard to their right and title over the property in question. In view of the said finding, we are of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant. It is needless to observe that the continuation of the name of the respondent No.6 in the revenue records itself would not confer any title over the property and the revenue entries should be understood only for the fiscal purpose. The observations made by this Court or by the learned Single Judge would not come in the way of the parties adjudicating their right before the Civil Court. In view of the same, we do not find any good ground to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB W.A. No.609/2023 Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. All the contentions of the parties on merits are left open. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1