- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33727 WP No. 14850 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.14850 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: NAGARAJU S/O SIDDA SHETTY, R/AT DODDARASINAKERE VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 422. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MADDUR TALUK PANCHAYATH MADDUR-571 428. REPTD BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2. D S MAHADEVA S/O LATE SUBBARAMA SHETTY, R/AT DODDARASINAKERE VILLAGE, C A KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422. 3. SIDDARAJU S/O MARI SHETTY, VAJAMANGALA VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE -570 010. 4. SOMASHEKARA S/O MARI SHETTY, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33727 WP No. 14850 of 2018 AGED MAJOR, VAJAMANGALA VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE-570 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B J SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 NOTICE TO R-3 & R-4 IS H/S V/O/DT: 23.08.2019) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.7.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANENX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The dispute pertains to whether khata in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, should stand in the name of the petitioner or the respondent No.2 herein. 2. Respondent No.2 is making a claim in respect of the property based on inheritance, whereas, petitioner is making a claim in respect of the property based on having - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33727 WP No. 14850 of 2018 purchased the property in the year 2011 from respondent Nos.3 and 4 under whose name the revenue documents / khata stood as on the date of execution of the Sale Deed. In this regard, O.S.No.440/2011, a suit for declaration of title, is said to be pending before the Prl. Civil Judge, Maddur, which is filed by the petitioner herein. 3. As mentioned above, it is an undisputed fact that the khata of the property was standing in the name of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein and after sale of the property in the year 2011, the same has been transferred in the name of the petitioner. However, in the year 2016, the impugned order has been passed wherein khata has been transferred in the name of respondent No.2 herein on the ground that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had no right over the property. It is the contention of the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, respondent No.1 has decided the title of the parties, which has no jurisdiction to do so and it is for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33727 WP No. 14850 of 2018 the Civil Court to decide the same. It is also submitted that O.S.No.440/2011 is pending in this regard. 4. Though the counsel for respondent No.2 justifies the impugned order, in the course of the arguments, both the counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 fairly submit that they have no objection for the khata to be continued in the name of respondent No.2 subject to the outcome of O.S.No.440/2011. They also submit that they will not alienate or create third party rights in respect of the property concerned and that they will not change the nature of the property and they will maintain status-quo in all respects in relation to the property. They also fairly submit that directions may be issued to the Trial Court to decide O.S.No.440/2011 without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. 5. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is disposed of. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33727 WP No. 14850 of 2018 (ii) Khata standing in the name of respondent No.2 in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition shall be continued subject to the outcome of O.S.No.440/2011 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Maddur. (iii) The Trial Court shall decide O.S.No.440/2011 without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order herein and solely based on the pleadings and evidence produced before it. (iv) Petitioner and respondent No.2 are restrained from alienating or creating any third party rights over the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petition or change the nature of the property and shall maintain status- quo in respect of the property subject to any orders that may be passed in O.S.No.440/2011. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34