- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26818 WP No. 34802 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 34802 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. 1A 1B 1C 1D K ANNAYAPPA S/O LATE KRISHNAAPPA NAIKAR SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. RADHAMMA W/O. LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS A. GANESH S/O. LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS JAYA RAVIKUMAR D/O. LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O.#10, CHINNAMUTHUNYAKKANPATTI KALANIPAKKAN VELLUR TALUK, KANDANERI TAMILNADU-635809 SHEKAR S/O. LATE ANNAYAPPA Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26818 WP No. 34802 of 2024 1E 1F AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS A. ANANDA S/O. LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS A. RAVI S/O. LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS P1A, 1B, 1D, 1E AND 1F ARE R/O SRIRAMA ROAD, THYAGARAJNAGARA 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU 2. TULASIRAM S/O LATE K.DHANARAJ, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING IN A PORTION OF 212, 11 BLOCK, SRI RAMA ROAD, THYAGARAJA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 028. 3. J.MANJUNATH S/O LATE K.JANARDHANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO.73, 4TH CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, L.N.PUARM, BENGALURU-560 021. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S C., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26818 WP No. 34802 of 2024 AND: 1. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-01 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANASHANKARI SUB-DIVISION, B.B.M.P YADIYUR WARD, BENGALURU-560070. 3. G. MURTHY, S/O LATE K. GOVINDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT 267, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA, SHASTRINAGAR, WARD NO.167, BENGALURU-560 028. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMANGALA GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. WARD 167/K.T.R/121/2024-2025 DTD. 17.09.2024 AS ANNX-F ISSUED BY THE R-2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26818 WP No. 34802 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The third petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.6879/1995 that has resulted in a preliminary decree, and after this Court's order dated 11.07.2019 in W.P.No.10008/2019, the final decree is also drawn in FPD No.127/2014. The second and third petitioners and the first petitioner [who is no more and whose legal representatives have come on record] have the advantage of a registered separate decree for their respective portions. These final decrees are produced as Annexures - C, D and E. The petitioners are aggrieved because the second respondent has issued the impugned Endorsement dated 17.09.2024 stating that the benefit of the revenue entries cannot be extended because the third respondent [one of the parties to the final decree proceedings] has filed objection stating that an appeal is filed after the orders of this Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26818 WP No. 34802 of 2024 on 11.07.2019 in W.P.No.10008/2019. It is seen that the third respondent has filed his application for impleadment in the final decree proceedings asserting that some of the parties to the suit have transferred portions in his favour, and therefore, he must be heard for a decree to be drawn before final decree is drawn. It is seen from Annexures - C to E, that after this Court's order in W.P.No.10008/2019 permitting him to come on record, the final decree is drawn and the decree insofar as the respective properties are presented for registration with the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar. It is undisputedly stated that the third respondent has filed a belated appeal along with an application for condonation of delay but there are no orders on such application and therefore, there are no orders staying the operation of the decree. This Court must observe that mere filing of an appeal without effectively prosecuting the same cannot - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26818 WP No. 34802 of 2024 justify refusal of Khata. The Authorities must act in terms of the decree and if the petitioners have the advantage of the revenue entries, it would be subject to the outcome in the pending appeal. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 17.09.2024 calling upon the second respondent to issue Khata in terms of the final decrees [as per Annexure C to E] subject to other compliances including payment of fee and other levies observing that the revenue entries if so made shall be subject to the outcome in the pending appeal. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB