- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15251-DB WA No. 377 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL No. 377 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT HEMAVATHI W/O LATE K S MUNIYAPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT No.55 YELUMANDAMMA TEMPLE STREET, H A FARM POST HEBBAL LAKE, KEMPAPURA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 024. 2. SRI K S KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA 72 YEARS, R/AT No.50 YELUMANDAMMA TEMPLE STREET H A FARM POST HEBBAL LAKE KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15251-DB WA No. 377 of 2023 BENGALURU - 560 024. 3. SRI K S RAJANNA 68 YEARS R/AT No.51 YELUMANDAMMA TEMPLE STREET H A FARM POST HEBBAL LAKE KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 024. PRESENTLY R/AT No. 37 GUNDURU VIRGONAGAR POST BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 049. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K N NITISH, ADVOCATE SRI K V NARSIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE YELAHANKA RANGE, BYATARAYANAPURA BANALORE - 560 092. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15251-DB WA No. 377 of 2023 2. THE REVENUE OFFICER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE YELAHANKA RANGE, BYATARAYANAPURA BANALORE - 560 092. 3. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHNAGARA PALIKE KODIGEHALLI SUB DIVISION 9TH MAIN ROAD SHAKARANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 092. 4. SMT. ANNAPURANAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT YELUMANDAMMA TEMPLE STREET H A FARM POST HEBBALA KEMPAPURA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 024. 5. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE K S NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT No. 50, YELUMANDAMMA TEMPLE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15251-DB WA No. 377 of 2023 STREET H A FARM POST HEBBALA KEMPAPURA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADEESWARA N R, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R5, D/W V.O.D -2.2.2026 R4 SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/07/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.13063/2022 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15251-DB WA No. 377 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the Order dated 04.07.2022 passed in W.P. No. 13063/2022. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 – BBMP. 3. Though notice was duly served on the contesting respondent No. 4, there is no appearance for the said respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that notice to respondent No. 5 is dispensed with. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relies on Annexures – A, B and C sale deeds for the years 1946, 1948 and 1953, respectively. It is further submitted that khatha had been recorded in the name of father of the appellants – Sri. Sanjeevaiah from the year 1966 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15251-DB WA No. 377 of 2023 onwards as is evident from Annexure – C series of documents. It is submitted that in the year 2019, respondent No. 4, claiming under her father – Sri. Muddaiah, sought change of khatha in her name. It is submitted that, even without putting legal heirs of Sri. Sanjeevaiah on notice, an order has been passed changing the khatha in favour of respondent No. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that khatha could not have been changed without even hearing the appellants herein whose predecessor in interest had his name entered as early as in the year 1966 and onwards. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submits that respondent No. 4 had made a request for change of khatha in her name on the ground of inheritance and that khatha had been changed in her favour. It is also submitted that appellants had taken the matter in appeal. The said appeal had been dismissed and they have approached this Court. It is submitted that this Court had also found that the dispute between the parties is civil in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15251-DB WA No. 377 of 2023 nature and that the question regarding title has to be considered in a civil suit. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the khatha admittedly stood registered in the name of appellant’s father – Sri. Sanjeevaiah as early as in the year 1966. It is also not in dispute that khatha was changed in favour of respondent No. 4 on an application made by her in the year 2019, that too, without any notice having been issued to legal heirs of Sri. Sanjeevaiah. It is an admitted fact that change in khatha has been effected after an unduly long time and without putting the khathedars on notice. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion, that even though the issue with regard to title is liable to be decided in appropriate proceedings, the order passed by the BBMP changing the khatha in favour of respondent No. 4, after such a long time, without even putting the khathedars on notice, is untenable. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15251-DB WA No. 377 of 2023 7. In the above view of the matter:- (i) Writ Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed in W.P. No. 13063/2022 dated 04.07.2022 is set aside. (iii) The appellants as well as respondent No.4 are relegated to the appropriate authority – respondent No. 3 for consideration on the question of khatha in accordance with law. (iv) Both parties shall be heard and appropriate reasoned speaking order shall be passed in accordance with law without undue delay. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 ct.sm