- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13316 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O OF MAAGERI VILLAGE-563 114, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 1(a) NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 1(b) SAHADEVA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 1(c) SMT. MARIYAMMA D/O LATE ERAPPA, W/O GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O DODDARAHALLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162. 1(d) CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 1(e) RAMANNA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 PETITIONERS 1(a), (b), (d) & (e) ARE R/O MAAGERI VILLAGE-563 114, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDESWARA N.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, BANGARPET TOWN AND TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114. 2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SULIKUNTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SULIKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-562 101. 3. MALLESHAPPA @ MALLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 3(a) SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 3(b) VENKATEGOWDA S/O LATE MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3(c) BHARATHAMMA D/O LATE MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3(d) LAKSHMI D/O LATE MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 3(e) CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. CHIKKIRAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O MAAGERI VILLAGE-563114, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 5. CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 6. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 7. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 8. LAKSHMANA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O MAAGERI VILLAGE-563 114, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET (T), KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. K.R. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a-e) & R4; V/O.DTD.10.06.2024, NOTICE TO R5 TO R8– HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: (A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED KHATHA EFFECTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MADE IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 AS PER ANNEXURE-F FOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 THE YEAR 2010-11 BY ISSUING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI; AND ETC. 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. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “a) Quash the impugned Khatha effected by the 2nd respondent made in favour of respondents 3 & 4 as per Annexure-F for the year 2010-11 by issuing the writ of Certiorari; b) Quash the impugned dated 13/03/2020 passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.AppealNo.9/2015- 16 as per Annexure-J by issuing the writ of Certiorari; c) Issue such other appropriate writ, order, direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. The petition was originally filed by Smt. Chinnamma W/o Erappa, who is stated to be the brother of respondents-3 and 4. During the pendency of the above matter, the petitioner has expired and her children have been brought on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 record as legal heirs. Prior to the filing of the petition, respondent No.3 had expired. His children have been brought on record as legal heirs. Proceedings had been initiated by the erstwhile petitioners before respondent No.2 challenging the Khata made out in favour of respondents-3 and 4, which came to be dismissed by respondent no.2. Appeal having been filed and respondent No.1 also dismissed the said appeal. Challenging both the orders, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The submission of Sri Siddheshwara N.K., learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property bearing Kaneshumari No.6 measuring 5 ankanas of the vacant backyard was purchased by the husband of the petitioner, namely Erappa on 25.05.1953 and as such he was the owner of the said property. On that basis, it was contended that the entry of the names of respondents-3 and 4 in the revenue - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 records is bad in law. Their names have to be deleted and name of the petitioner was to be added. 4. Therein is also appears a dispute as regards the identity of the property inasmuch as in the impugned order, the property has been mentioned as Janjar No.4, property No.15, measuring 24x24 feet. 5. Be that as it may, respondents-3 and 4 claim that the said property had devolved on them under a oral partition and thereafter respondents-3 and 4 having obtained a building licence had put up construction on the said property and have been residing therein and as also the Khata had been made out in their favour. 6. Both respondents-1 and 2 having considered that there is a Khata which has been made out and accepting the claim of oral petition had dismissed the application, the petition as also the appeal filed before them. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 7. From the arguments advanced, it is clear that there are several disputed questions of fact as regard the claim made by the petitioner and respondents-3 and 4. In as much as initially, the petitioner claiming that the property belongs to her husband who had purchased the said property in the year 1953. The contention is also that the petitioner's husband being one of the sons would be entitled to an equal share in the property along with respondents-3 and 4 whereas respondents-3 and 4 not disputing the property to be ancestral property have contended that the said property came to the share of respondents-3 and 4 under a oral partition. Subsequent to which, respondents-3 and 4 claim to have exercised ownership rights. 8. The above facts would indicate a deep conflict between the say of the petitioner and respondents-3 and 4, which would have to be determined in a properly instituted suit and cannot be determined in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 a revenue proceedings before respondent No.2 initially, on an appeal before respondent No.1 and thereafter before this Court in a writ proceedings. 9. The disputed question of fact going to root of the matter cannot be so determined without proper evidence being led and the witnesses being examined and cross-examined in order to ascertain the truth and veracity of the claim made by each of the parties. 10. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that neither respondent No. 2 nor respondent No.1 having accepted the claim of the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner being based on certain factual aspects which have to be established by the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have filed a suit rather than a proceeding before respondent No. 2 and before respondent No.1. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 11. The claim made by the petitioner not having been considered by respondent No. 2 and subsequent respondent No.1, if a suit were to be filed by the petitioners now, the same would have to be considered by the appropriate Civil Court. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners or the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the same would have to be determined after trial. However, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would have to be provided to the petitioners for having prosecuted these proceedings before the wrong forum. In that view of the matter, benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is provided to the petitioners if a suit were to be filed by the petitioners. Needless to say, it is only after the trial and determination of the case, necessary orders could be passed by the trial Court and the entries now in existence cannot be disturbed until then. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2889 WP No. 13316 of 2021 12. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23