- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25753 OF 2022 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H.C. NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A HALAGUR VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PRESENTLY R/A 263, 6TH CROSS NEW KAVIKA LAYOUT BAPUJI NAGAR, MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-26. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH .M.H, AND SRI. K. VENKATA SUBHEER, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HALAGURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 4. SRI. CHIKKA THAMMAIAH S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A HALAGUR VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 5. SUSHEELAMMA W/O CHIKKA THAMMAIAH AGED MAJOR R/A HALAGUR VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA .B, AGA FOR R1 (MA NOT FILED); SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 (VAKALATH NOT FILED); SRI. S. SURESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 IN APPEAL 5/2021/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE KHTAHA STANDING IN THE NAME OF R5 VIDE ANNEXURE-W AND TO RESTORE THE SAME IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.5/2021-22, wherein the katha in favour of petitioner is set aside and consequently, katha is issued in favour of respondent No.5. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of the petition is a residential property situated at Halaguru Village. Petitioner and respondent No.4 who are full brothers purchased the residential property measuring 12.5 x 45 yards in Katha No.201 under registered sale deed dated 21.06.1988 which is evidenced at Annexure-A. Annexure-B is the encumbrance certificate indicating that petitioner and respondent No.4 jointly purchased the property. In 1999, petitioner and respondent No.4 resolved to effect partition and with consent of other siblings, the present schedule property which is half portion was allotted to petitioner's share and in view of consent affidavit executed by other - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 siblings, petitioner's name was reflected in the katha to an extent of half share. Accordingly, katha insofar as schedule property is concerned stood in the name of the petitioner upto 2018. 3. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.4, by impersonating him and forging his signature, has fraudulently sought a change of katha in his own name by relying on an alleged consent letter purportedly executed by the petitioner. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that, without issuing any notice or affording him an opportunity of being heard, respondent No.3, the Gram Panchayat proceeded to effect a change in the katha in favour of respondent No.4. Aggrieved by this unilateral action, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 before respondent No.2, challenging the legality and correctness of the katha entries altered by respondent No.3 on the strength of the said consent letter, which is an unregistered document. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner contends that respondent No.4 has executed a gift deed dated 09.12.2021, transferring the subject property in favour of his wife, respondent No.5. The petitioner submits that such alienation is further evidence of respondent No.4 acting in derogation of the petitioner’s lawful rights and with the intent to frustrate his legitimate claim over the schedule property. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority, as evidenced at Annexure-W, whereby the authority has relegated the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs before a competent civil court. The petitioner contends that the appellate authority has failed to appreciate the nature of the dispute and the underlying title documents, thereby rendering an order that is not only unsustainable but also contrary to settled legal principles. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5, despite service of notice. 7. The core issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether respondent No.3, the Gram Panchayat, was justified in effecting a change in the katha based solely on a purported consent letter without issuing notice to the petitioner or conducting any enquiry. The alleged consent letter is produced at Annexure-K and is the basis for the disputed katha transfer. 8. A perusal of the records indicates that the so- called consent letter is written on a Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper. Under this document, respondent No.4 appears to assert that the schedule property has been conveyed to him by the petitioner. Relying on this document, respondent No.3 proceeded to pass a resolution - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 and ordered the change of katha in favour of respondent No.4. It is significant to note that the document in question is not a registered conveyance deed, nor does it constitute a valid instrument of transfer under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, any reliance placed by respondent No.3 on such a document, in derogation of the petitioner's rights and without following due process, is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. 9. The next important question that arises is whether the appellate authority was justified in directing the petitioner to approach a civil court to establish his title, particularly when there is already an undisputed title deed in his favour. A bare perusal of the registered sale deed dated 21.06.1988 reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.4 had jointly purchased the residential property bearing House Katha No.201, measuring 12.5 x 45 yards. Subsequent to the purchase, a partition was effected between the petitioner and respondent No.4, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 pursuant to which the petitioner was allotted the half portion that forms the subject matter of the present writ petition. 10. In light of the undisputed title flowing from the registered sale deed and subsequent partition, it clearly emerges that respondent No.4 does not dispute the petitioner's ownership over the schedule property. The very fact that respondent No.4 relies on an unregistered document styled as a “consent letter” to claim entitlement over the property presupposes acknowledgment of the petitioner’s title. Therefore, when the foundational title in respect of the property remains intact and uncontested in terms of a registered deed, the appellate authority’s observation that the petitioner should establish his rights before a civil court is clearly misconceived. On the contrary, it is for respondent No.4 to establish his claim in a court of competent jurisdiction, should he wish to dispute the petitioner’s title. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 11. The appellate authority has failed to properly appreciate the well-established principle that, in the absence of a registered document conveying title, no right can be claimed over immovable property. Furthermore, the authority has erroneously shifted the burden onto the petitioner, who already holds title, rather than requiring respondent No.4 to substantiate his claim. 12. The principle of relegating parties to civil courts is frequently misunderstood and misapplied by revenue authorities and local bodies, despite repeated pronouncements by this Court clarifying the scope and application of such a principle. It has become a recurring pattern wherein rightful owners, whose title is evidenced by registered sale deeds, are unjustifiably directed to seek redress before civil courts, while authorities proceed to effect mutation or change of katha in favour of third parties relying on unregistered documents such as consent letters, affidavits, or self-serving declarations. Such actions not only undermine the sanctity of registered title - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 documents but also contravene the express statutory requirements prescribed for carrying out revenue entries under the relevant enactments. Mutation proceedings are intended solely for fiscal and administrative purposes and cannot be used as a means to confer, extinguish, or dispute title to immovable property. The case on hand is a classic illustration of this pervasive malaise, where the Gram Panchayat, in clear disregard of the law, has altered the katha in favour of a third party based on an unregistered document, and the appellate authority, instead of rectifying this illegality, has erroneously directed the petitioner who has a registered title followed by family partition to approach a civil court. This not only causes grave prejudice to law-abiding citizens but also emboldens parties acting on fraudulent or legally infirm claims. Such conduct on the part of authorities warrants corrective directions to prevent recurrence. 13. Another serious and fundamental flaw that vitiates the entire process is the complete lack of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 jurisdiction on the part of the Gram Panchayat to pass a fresh resolution cancelling the khata issued in favour of the petitioner. The records clearly reveal that the petitioner’s name had already been mutated based on a valid family partition, which was duly recognized and formalized by a prior resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Unless and until that earlier resolution whereby the khata was issued in the petitioner’s name is set aside, modified, or annulled by the competent Appellate Authority in accordance with law, the Gram Panchayat had no authority whatsoever to unilaterally revisit or reverse its own resolution. The Gram Panchayat is a statutory body functioning within a limited sphere of jurisdiction and cannot assume revisional or appellate powers to cancel earlier entries without following due process. Any subsequent resolution passed in derogation of an existing and validly issued khata amounts to a patent illegality and an abuse of process. Such arbitrary and unauthorised exercise of power strikes at the very - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 root of administrative fairness and violates the principle of finality attached to revenue entries made after due deliberation. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the resolution passed by respondent No.3/Gram Panchayat, as well as the order passed by the appellate authority evidenced at Annexure- W, are unsustainable in law. Respondent No.3 has clearly acted in excess of its jurisdiction by effecting a change of katha based on a consent letter that neither confers title nor satisfies the requirements of a valid transfer. Likewise, the appellate authority has erred in relegating the petitioner to a civil court when the petitioner’s title is evidenced by a registered document and is not in dispute. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2/appellate authority is liable to be quashed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25866 WP No. 25753 of 2022 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.5/2021-22 is hereby quashed; (iii) Respondent No.3/Gram Panchayat is hereby directed to forthwith restore petitioner's name to the schedule property; (iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44