- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 984 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SUSHILAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKA HOSAHALLI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANJANEYA A B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY: UNDER SECRETARY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DEVANAHALLI TALUK PANCHAYATH, DEVANAHALLI TOWN AND TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, BETTAKOTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BETTAKOTE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; RESPONDENT NO.1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 TO EFFECT THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING GRAMATANA NO.100/163 MEASURING EAST TO WEST-31.10 METERS, NORTH TO SOUTH - 27.40 METERS IN TOTALLY MEASURING 852-14 SQUARE METERS SITUATED AT DODDA HOSAHALLI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK IN VIEW OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q IN REF.NO. PÁ¤C/vÁ¥ÀAzÉÃ/215/2019-20 DATED 22.11.2019 OF THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to enter her name in the Panchayat records /khata register in respect of the property bearing Gramatana No.100/163 measuring East to West 31.10 Meters and North to South 27.40 Meters totally measuring 852.14 Square Meters situate at Dodda Hosahalli, Channarayapatna hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. The petitioner claims that her husband – Sri M. Narayanappa was the absolute owner of the property mentioned above. At a meeting dated 10.02.1963 convened by Bettakote Grama Panchayat (henceforth referred to as 'the Panchayat') of which respondent No.4 is Panchayat Development Officer, it had resolved to enter the name of the husband of the petitioner in the Panchayat records in respect of the aforementioned property. The husband of the petitioner died on 19.04.2016. The petitioner being the eldest member in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021 the family filed an application to enter her name in the assessment register in respect of the aforesaid property. However, some residents of Chikkahosahalli, namely, Sri Chikka Muniyappa, Sri Dodda Muniyappa, Sri Dodda Krishnappa, Sri Muniraju and Sri Ashok had also filed an application for entering their names in respect of the property in question in the assessment register. On 19.06.2018, the respondent No.4 placed both the applications before the general meeting of the Panchayat. The elected body of the Panchayat decided that the property claimed by the petitioner was the property belonging to the joint family and therefore, directed the respondent No.4 to conduct a spot inspection. The petitioner claims that as per the spot inspection, the rival claimants claimed their right only in respect of the usufructs of the tamarind tree and the petitioner questioned the decision of the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 after verification of the claim of the petitioner as well as the rival claimants, directed the respondent No.4 to effect the khata in respect of the aforesaid property in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter applied for survey of the aforesaid property. The Taluk Surveyor prepared - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021 a sketch and uploaded the documents for consideration by the respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.4 did not take steps to register the khata in the name of the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned property. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.4 had issued an endorsement dated 28.08.2019 directing her to submit documents within 3 days and an endorsement dated 31.08.2019 was issued by the respondent No.4 informing her that there are no khata details found in its registers in respect of khata No.100/163 of Doddahosahalli village. The respondent No.4 also issued a reply dated 16.09.2019 stating that the previous Panchayat Development officer had not made any entries in the khata registers. The respondent No.4 thereafter informed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 about not entering the name of the petitioner in the khata which was also communicated to the petitioner by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide their letter/s dated 12.11.2019 and 22.11.2019 respectively. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking for the aforementioned directions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when once the Panchayat had taken a decision at a meeting in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021 the year 1963 when the khata of the property in question was made out in the name of the husband of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 could not have entertained any further doubt and must have entered the name of the petitioner’s husband initially and later, the name of the petitioner in the property register/khata. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.4 who has contended that after verifying the books and records, it was found that the Panchayat had not passed any resolution dated 10.02.1963 as claimed by the petitioner. He claimed that based on an application filed by the petitioner on 03.09.2019, a notice dated 27.11.2019 was issued to the petitioner to produce all the documents. Thereafter, when the officials of the Bettakote Grama Panchayat went to the property for a spot inspection, they found that the petitioner was not in possession of the property bearing khata No.100/163, but a person named Mr. Ashok and his family members were in possession. Likewise, one Mr.Doddamuniyappa and Others had filed a suit for declaration in O.S. No.434/2018, which is pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli. In the said suit, the petitioner herein is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021 arrayed as defendant No.1 and respondent No.4 herein is arrayed as defendant No.2. He contends that a perusal of the plaint filed in the aforesaid suit discloses that there is a dispute regarding the title of the petitioner to the suit schedule property. In view of the above, the respondent No.4 had issued an endorsement dated 29.11.2019 intimating the petitioner that it would take action only after the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.434/2018 by the Civil Court. It is contended that though this endorsement was served on the petitioner, deliberately, the petitioner has not produced the said endorsement in this petition. Thus respondent No.4/Panchayat Development Officer claims that unless the said civil suit is decided, he is not in a position to enter the name of the petitioner in the Panchayat records as a person liable to pay tax. 5. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed statement of objections reiterating the above contentions. They have referred to the suit in O.S. No.441/2018 filed by the petitioner herein against Mr. Arun Kumar and respondent No.4 herein/Panchayat Development Officer and one Smt. Jayalakshmi before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021 JMFC., Devanahalli. The said suit was dismissed for non- prosecution by the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 18.04.2023. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 reiterated the contentions urged in the statement of objections and submitted that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material facts before this Court and therefore, no indulgence can be shown to her. 7. The petitioner has though claimed that the property in question belongs to her husband and that the Panchayat had resolved in the year 1963 to enter her husband’s name in respect of the property in question in the Municipal records, it is not in dispute that a suit in O.S. No.434/2018 is filed for declaration of title by a person named Mr. Doddamuniyappa and others against the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 and the same is pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli. Therefore, unless the said suit is decided, the respondent No.4 cannot take any decision to enter the name of the petitioner in the Panchayat records. The petitioner has suppressed filing of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021 suit in O.S. No.434/2018 as well as the letter of intimation/notice issued by the respondent No.4 dated 27.11.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs at the hands of this Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed. It is, however, open for the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs from the hands of the respondent No.4 once the suit in O.S No.434/2018 which is pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, is decided in her favour. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56