- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31528 WP No. 26471 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 26471 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KADIR AHAMMED S/O SYED JAFER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O WARD NO.17, 4TH CROSS CHOWDAREDDY PALYA, CHINTAMNI CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPALITY, CHINTAMANI CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 102. 3. SMT. B.A. KUSUMAMABA W/O KRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.1499, SANYA NILAYA 18TH MAIN ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31528 WP No. 26471 of 2018 N.R.EXTENSION BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 003. 4. SMT. BHANU AMAR W/O LATE AMARNATH 5. SRI.N.A.GANESH S/O N.R. AMARNATH BOTH R/AT VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT CHINTAMANI EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. R.V.RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [ABSENT]; SRI. M.SOMANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHINTHAMANI, NOT TO CHANGE THE KHATHA IN FAVOUR OF RESPONENT NOs.4 AND 5 OR RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TILL THE DISPOSAL OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 08.06.2018 AT ANNEXURE-B OR DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS PETITION AND FURTHER DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE SAID APPLICATION FORTHWITH AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31528 WP No. 26471 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The case of the petitioner is that there is a dispute regarding writ petition schedule property between the petitioner and respondent nos.3 to 5. Hence he has made a request to respondent no.2-City Municipality that khatha in respect of writ petition schedule property should not be transferred in favour of respondent nos.3 to 5. On the ground that request of the petitioner has not been considered so far, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for respondent no.2-City Municipality is absent. Respondent nos.4 and 5 have filed their objections and have contended that they are the owners of the property concerned and they are entitled to have the khatha with respect to the property mutated in their name. It is further submitted that khatha has been changed into their name already. However, khatha certificate is not produced by them. The petitioner disputes issuance of khatha. Due to absence of the learned counsel and pleadings on behalf of respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31528 WP No. 26471 of 2018 no.2, Court is unable to conclude whether khatha is issued or not. 3. Admittedly, respondent no.2 is authorized to take a decision as to in whose name the khatha regarding the writ petition schedule property has to be entered. As per the petitioner, no decision has been taken yet. 4. The written petition is filed with the following prayers: "(A) ISSUE a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 - Municipal Corporation, Chinthamani, not to change the Khatha in favour of Respondents -4 and 5 or R-3 in respect of the schedule property till the disposal of application filed by the petitioner dtd. 08.06.2018 at Annexure-B or during the pendency of this Petition and further directing R-2 to consider the said application forthwith; (B) Issue such other writ or Order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case, with costs, in the interest of justice." 5. If any person were to make a request to respondent no.2 to change the khatha into their name, respondent no.2 is obliged to consider the said request in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned and take appropriate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31528 WP No. 26471 of 2018 decision in this matter. It is the case of the petitioner that, respondent nos.3 to 5 have requested respondent no.2 to change the khatha in their favour and he has made a request not to change the khatha. It is for respondent no.2 to take a decision after hearing the parties concerned. Under the circumstances, this Court cannot give a negative direction directing respondent no.2 not to change the khatha in the name of any person. 6. For the aforementioned reason, the writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to hear all the parties and take appropriate decision in accordance with law in respect of changing the khatha or not regarding the writ petition schedule property, if the same is already not taken. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the issuance of khatha in favour of respondent nos.3 to 5 in the manner known to law if it is already issued. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54