- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2068 WP No. 47994 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 47994 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: HALU UTPADAKARA SAHAKARA SANGHA REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OP. SOCIETIES ACT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT - T.V. VISHVANATH SECRETARY-T.N. MADHUSUDAN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT &PETITIONER (BY SRI. THIMMAIAH K.H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK PANCHAYATH SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 2. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER THUMMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH THUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2068 WP No. 47994 of 2017 3. THE PRESIDENT THUMMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH THUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 4. THE SECRETARY THUMMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH THUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 5. SRI. THAMMANNA S/O LATE SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT THUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's 5(A). SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE T. THAMANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 5(B). SMT. YASHODAMMA D/O LATE T. THAMANNA W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE KARAHALLI POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-562 110 5(C). SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE T. THAMANNA W/O RAJANNA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2068 WP No. 47994 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE KARAHALLI POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-562 110 5(D). SRI. T. MUNIREDDY S/O LATE T. THAMANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5(E). SRI. T. SRINIVAS S/O LATE T. THAMANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.5(A), 5(D) AND 5(E) ARE RESIDING AT THUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE THIPPENAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. R.B. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A TO E) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-1 IN CASE NO.V.P.C.2/ 2016-17, DTD 03.04.2017 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-A, CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTING THE R-3 TO RESTORE THE KHATHA OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RECORDS OF THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2068 WP No. 47994 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Call for the records from the 1st Respondent in Case No.V.P.C.2/2016-17, dated 03.04.2017 and issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent at ANNEUXRE-'A' consequently directing the 3rd Respondent to restore the khatha of the Petitioner in the records of the 3rd Respondent in respect of the property in question. (ii) To pass such other order/s in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The petitioner claims that by way of resolution on 16.07.2008, the property measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. was resolved to be allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Thummanahalli Grama Panchayat. However, name of respondent No.5 has been entered in the revenue records. In pursuance of the resolution, the name of respondent No.5 was sought to be deleted, which came to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2068 WP No. 47994 of 2017 challenged by respondent No.5 before respondent No.1, who by Order dated 03.04.2017 has directed the name of respondent No.5 to be continued in the revenue records and also held that respondent No.5 has not been granted opportunity of hearing before cancelling the khata of respondent No.5. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission of Sri. Thimmaiah K.H., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the resolution was passed by the Panchayat to allot the said property to the petitioner and the name of respondent No.5 had rightly been deleted and the impugned order at Annexure-A has been passed. To support his contention, learned counsel has also taken this Court through various documents indicating that respondent No.5 was not the owner of the property bearing No.HL 275, there is no allotment made in favour of respondent No.5 or his predecessor and therefore, the impugned order passed is also bad in law on that count. 4. Per contra, Sri. M.S. Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that resolution has not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2068 WP No. 47994 of 2017 been given effect to, there is no allotment which has been made in favour of the petitioner. In the impugned order it has been noticed that there is no allotment made in favour of the petitioner, nor the petitioner has made any payment of taxes let alone possession of the property for allotment. 5. Sri. R.B. Prakash, learned counsel representing respondent No.5 would vehemently submit that allotment has been made in favour of respondent No.5 and name of respondent No.5 would not have been deleted by the Panchayat and in that view of the matter, considering the provisions enshrined under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the first respondent has passed the order in favour of respondent No.5. The said order cannot be found fault with since respondent No.5 is the owner of the property. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the writ papers. 7. Though various arguments have been addressed with regard to cancellation of khata issued in the name of respondent No.5 and validity of resolution passed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2068 WP No. 47994 of 2017 Panchayat allotting the same to the petitioner, the fact remains that the resolution has become stale and no action has been taken thereafter and no allotment has been made in favour of the petitioner and no tax payment has been made. The property apparently continues with the respondent No.5 who had also filed and succeeded therein in O.S.No.465/2007 which has been decreed on 14.06.2011. The Regular Appeal filed in R.A.No.41/2011 against respondent No.5 came to be disposed of on 03.08.2013. There has been no dispute about these facts. The version of the petitioner which has been considered in the above Regular Appeal, cannot be countenanced in the present petition. The petitioner, in my considered opinion would not have any locus to challenge the impugned order at Annexure-A in view of the fact that there is only a resolution passed by the Panchayat and subsequently there is no allotment which has been made. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, petitioner is required to follow-up before the Panchayat and cannot seek any cancellation of name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2068 WP No. 47994 of 2017 8. No grounds are made out in this petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5