- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 100021 OF 2022 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: KRISHNA S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA RITTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: GOLDSMITH, R/O: NAYAK CHAWL HAVERI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 1. VEENA W/O. LATE KRISHNA RITTI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. NIL R/O. NAYAK CHAWL HAVERI – 581110. 2. SHRI. SANTOSH S/O. LATE KRISHNA RITTI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NAYAK CHAWL, HAVERI-581110. 3. SAVITA D/O. LATE KRISHNA RITTI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O. NAYAK CHAWL HAVERI-581110. (PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 3 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED KRISHNA WHO WAS RESPONDENT NO.4 IN WRIT PETITION) 4. RAMESH S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA RITTI, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 AGED 42 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH, R/O: NAYAK CHAWL, HAVERI-581110. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HAVERI TALUKA SUVARNAKARARA KAIGARIKA KELASAGARA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMITA HAVERI REPRESENTED BY ITS LIQUIDATOR (LIQUIDATOR APPOINTED VIDE ORDER NO. CO/09/C/AP/2013 DT. 13-04-2016) 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI-581110. 3. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HAVERI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, TMC, HAVERI -581110 BALACHANDRA S/O. NARAYANA PALANKAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 4. SMT. SAROJA W/O. BALACHANDRA PALANKAR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DESAI KERI, NEAR GARADIMANE, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 5. SATISH S/O. BALACHANDRA PALANKAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH, R/O: HOUSE NO. 55, HOSAYALLAPUR CIRCLE, DHARWAD DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 6. ASHOK S/O. BALACHANDRA PALANKAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH, R/O: DESAIKERI, NEAR GARADIMANE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581110. 7. SMT. MANJULA W/O. PRAKASH RAIKER AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, NOW AT R/O: SHIVALLI CROSS, BEHIND MURUGHAMATH, HAVERIPETH, DHARWAD DIST 8. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O. SURESH KURDEKAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIVALLI CROSS, BEHIND MURUGHAMATH, HAVERIPETH. DHARWAD DIST. 9. SMT. RADHABAI W/O. BALACHANDRA PALANKAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., NAGARAJ S/O. BALACHANDRA PALANKAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH, R/O: DESAIKERI, NEAR GARADIMANE, HAVERI DIST. HAVERI-5811100 10. PUNDALIK S/O. BALACHANDRA PALANKAR AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH, R/O: HOUSE NO. 55, HOSAYALLAPUR CIRCLE, DHARWAD DIST. DHARWAD-580001. 11. SMT. PRIYA W/O. PRAKASH JANNU AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DESAIKERI, NEAR GARADIMANE, HAVERI DIST. HAVERI-581110. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 12. PARIMALA D/O. BALACHNDRA PALANKAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O DESAIKERI, NEAR GARADIMANE, HAVERI DIST. HAVERI-581110. 13. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S BADIGER AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTRY R/O: AGASANAGERI, KARJAGI DIST: HAVERI-581110. 14. MOUNESH S/O. GANESHAPPA BADIGER AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTRY, R/O: KARJAGI RAILWAY STATION, DIST: HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R2; SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE AND SMT.USHA H.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES FOR R13 AND R14; NOTICE TO R5, 8, 9, 10 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.222/2005 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) This intra-Court appeal is filed by respondents No.4 and 5 in the writ petition filed at the hands of the 1st respondent – Haveri Taluka Suvarnakarara Kaigarika Kelasagarara Sahakari Sangha Niyamita. The writ petition was filed by the Sangha in the year 2005 calling in question an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 15.12.2004 at Annexure-H and an earlier order passed by the Chief Officer of the City Municipal Council on 31.03.2004 at Annexure-G. 2. A brief background is required to be stated as to how the challenge was raised by the society to the orders passed by the Chief Officer of the Municipality and the Deputy Commissioner. It is the contention of the society that acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (‘Act’, for short) was notified in the official gazette on 26.04.1974 proposing to acquire total extent of 30 acres 16 guntas in Sy.Nos.29 and 30 of Ijari Lakamapur village, Haveri Hobli, Haveri taluk, the then Dharwad District, for the public purpose of providing house sites to Goldsmith’s - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 Association, Haveri. It is contended that final notification was also issued and thereafter award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’, for short) on 18.02.1980 in a sum of ₹31,757.25 and the same was paid by the Sangha. Thereafter, the society filed an application before the then Gram Panchayat seeking permission to form a layout and allot sites in favour of the members of the society. It is contended that a resolution was also passed by the Gram Panchayat on 09.10.1986 permitting the society to form the layout and allot sites in terms of the purpose for which the lands were acquired. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for 1st respondent – society that the resolution also made it clear that the plots that would be formed should be allotted only to the members of the society. Thereafter, the layout was formed and allotments were made in favour of the members of the society and sale deeds were executed in favour of the allottees commencing from 04.05.1991 to 17.06.1999. It is contended that in all 159 sites were allotted and sale deeds were executed accordingly. It is also contended that only two plots remained for allotment which belong to the appellants herein. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent – society that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 appellants have already made payment towards the allotment of the sites and the 1st respondent – society is ready and willing to allot and execute the sale deeds in favour of the appellants. 3. However, various litigations were raised at the hands of the other respondents commencing in Writ Petition Nos.9132 – 9143/1991 which were filed by Sri Balachandra s/o Narayan Palankar and Sri Veerabhadrappa s/o Virupakshappa Ritti. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent – society submitted that when admittedly the lands were notified and acquired for the benefit of the members of the society, it cannot be contended at the hands of the appellants herein that allotments were rightly made by the then Gram Panchayat, which had no right, title or interest in allotting the sites carved out of the lands which were acquired for the benefit of the society. Learned counsel submitted that although the matter was remanded to the Municipal Council to reconsider the matter insofar as it related to the two sites allotted in favour of the petitioners therein i.e. Sri Veerabhadrappa s/o Virupakshappa Ritti and Sri B.N.Palankar s/o late Narayan, the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council directed that the names of 128 members - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 of the Haveri Taluka Suvarnakarara Kaigarika Kelasagarara Sahakari Sangha Niyamita which were entered in the property register from the year 1980-81 of the then Gram Panchayat shall continue in the records of the Municipality. In the appeal preferred under Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, filed at the hands of the 1st respondent – society herein, the Deputy Commissioner also did not go into the question as to how the allotment was made by the Gram Panchayat and how the names of such persons who are not members of the society were entered in the records of the Gram Panchayat and continued in the records of the Municipality. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge who has only remitted the matter back to the City Municipal Council. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri V.M.Sheelvant appearing for the appellants submitted that the records would clearly establish the fact that the sites were allotted by the then Gram Panchayat commencing from the year 1974 and the sites allotted by the Gram Panchayat were assessed to tax from the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 year 1980-81. That being the position, it is contended that when the Gram Panchayat has carved out about 128 sites and has allotted the sites in favour of the various persons including the appellants herein, the 1st respondent – society cannot seek to remove the names of the allottees at the hands of the Gram Panchayat decades after the entries were made in the revenue records. Learned counsel would submit that although it is true that the appellants herein are also members of the society, however the learned counsel would submit that the original society has become defunct and some other persons who were not the members of the original society have thereafter falsely claimed that it is the same society in whose favour the lands were acquired and now the members of the managing committee of the society are carving more number of sites and are seeking to allot the same to non-members of the society. At any rate, it is contended that if it is a question of title, then the society will have to approach the competent Civil Court to redress its grievance and it cannot take a shortcut and try to remove the names of the khatedars whose names have been entered legitimately after the allotment was made at the hands of the Gram Panchayat. It is also contended by the learned - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 counsel that the Gram Panchayat never handed over the possession of the lands in question in favour of the 1st respondent – society. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri V.M.Sheelvant for the appellants, learned counsel Sri Ashok R.Kalyanashetti for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar for respondent No.3 – Municipality, learned AGA and perused the appeal memo. 6. Having regard to the checkered history of this litigation, and having regard to certain admitted facts such as the State Government issuing acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in the year 1974 and the finding recorded by the SLAO in the award that an agreement was entered into between the land owners/kabjedars and the society on 16.06.1973 agreeing to pay a sum of ₹32,000/- as value of the lands and the finding regarding possession, that by private negotiation, on 10.06.1973 (found at Page 95 file No.VI) possession has been taken over by the acquiring body and there is no mention in the agreement about payment of interest and the fact that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 compensation has been paid by the 1st respondent – society, in that view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the lands belonged to the Gram Panchayat and that allotments were made by the Gram Panchayat legitimately. The crux of the issue therefore is how did the Gram Panchayat form the layout and allot the sites. It is also borne out from the records that although it is contended by the petitioners that allotments were made by the Gram Panchayat commencing from the year 1974 and khatas were registered in the year 1980-81, nevertheless a resolution has been passed by the Gram Panchayat on 09.10.1986 sanctioning and granting permission to the society to form a layout. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, one of the conditions imposed by the Gram Panchayat while granting permission to the society to form the layout is that the sites shall be allotted only to the members of the society. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to Page No.458 which is a resolution dated 19.07.1986 passed by the Gram - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 Panchayat. Hereto, we find that in terms of the decision of the Chief Executive Officer, a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat deciding to handover the plots carved out of Sy.Nos.29 and 30 in favour of the 1st respondent – society. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that at condition No.5, it is stated that only the other sites remaining after allotment is decided to be handed over to the 1st respondent – society, is not the tenor of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. 8. Be that as it may, since this Court is of the opinion that having regard to the admitted facts that the acquisition was made by the State Government for the benefit of the members of the 1st respondent – society of which the appellants are also members, it is difficult to comprehend as to how the Gram Panchayat proceeded to carve out sites and allot the same in favour of the persons, including the members of the society and non-members. However, we also find it difficult to accept the fact that the writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent – society challenging the orders passed by the Chief Officer of the Municipality and the Deputy Commissioner at - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 Annexure-G and H, without impleading the persons who would be affected if their names were removed from the khata register. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that only four individuals were arrayed as private respondents in the writ petition filed at the hands of the 1st respondent – society. In the considered opinion of this Court, the dispute raised at the hands of the 1st respondent – society is now touching upon the title of the property in question. The law is well settled that revenue authorities will not be permitted to enter into disputed questions of title. However, we are also of the opinion that having regard to the registered sale deeds executed by the 1st respondent – society between 04.05.1991 to 17.06.1999 in respect of 159 sites, if the khatas have been registered in the records of the Municipality, then should remain is the khatas. We have also noticed that neither the Chief Officer, in the order at Annexure-G nor the Deputy Commissioner, in the order at Annexure-H have gone into the question as to how the Gram Panchayat made allotments, when it was also found in the two orders that acquisition notification was issued by the State Government for the benefit of the Goldsmith’s Association, Haveri. In order to narrow down the lis - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 that can be decided by the Chief Officer of the Municipality, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Appeal is partly allowed. ii. We direct the Chief Officer of the City Municipal Council, Haveri to issue notice to the 1st respondent – society, all the khatedars whose names have been entered in the records of the Municipality in Sy.Nos.29 and 30 of Ijari Lakamapur village. We direct the Chief Officer to verify from the records of the Municipality regarding entries made in the khata register pertaining to the sale deeds registered by the 1st respondent – society. If it is found that entries have been made in the khata register of the Municipality on the basis of the registered sale deeds executed by the 1st respondent – society, the same shall continue. On the other hand, if the khatas have been registered, not on the basis of the registered sale deeds executed by the 1st respondent – society and such khatas have been registered by the then Gram Panchayat in terms of the allotment said to have been made by the Gram Panchayat, then appropriate endorsement shall be issued by the Chief Officer to the 1st respondent – - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8837-DB WA No. 100021 of 2022 society to approach the competent Civil Court to redress its grievance. iii. The entire process of issuing notice and passing an order in terms of the directions issued by this Court shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly. iv. The order of status quo directed to be maintained by the parties, in the daily order dated 27.01.2022 passed by this Court shall continue till the decision is rendered by the Chief Officer of the CMC. In view of the disposal of the writ appeal, all other pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK_CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49