- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 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. 20599 OF 2023 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K. PAVAN KUMAR S/O KANTHA R., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, CHIKKATHOTLUKERE VILLAGE AND POST, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TUMAKURU ZILLA PANCHAYATH, TUMAKURU-572 101. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TUMAKURU TALUK PANCHAYATH, TUMAKURU-572 101. 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHIKKATHOTLUKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH, CHIKKATHOTLUKERE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 128. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 5. SRI. NAWAB JAB S/O LATE MOHAMMED KHALANDAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.9, 1ST CROSS ROAD, NEAR AKBAR MASJID, BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA EXTENSION, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. 6. SRI. P. MADHUSUDAN S/O PRAKASH P., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/ CHIKKATHOTLUKERE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. HARISH G., ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5-SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: (A) CALL FOR RECORDS IF NECESSARY; (B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2023 BEARING NO. KANIA/THAPANTHU/NYAME/09/2023-24 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 26/07/2023 BEARING NO. GRAPAN.CHI/06/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-F; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “(a) Call for records if necessary, (b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned Order dated 05.08.2023 bearing No. KaNiA/ThaPanthu/ Nyame/09/2023-24 at Annexure-A passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the impugned dated 26.07.2023 bearing No.GraPan.Chi/06/2023-24 issued by the 4th respondent at Annexure-F; (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to effect the Katha of the schedule property in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 24.04.2023 at Annexure-B; and (d) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property bearing Grama Panchayat Khata No.503 of Chikkathotlukere Grama Panchayat, Chikkathotlukere, Kora Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk and District, Tumakuru District, measuring East to West - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 14.3256 meters and North to South 3.048 meters (47x10 feet) and having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.04.2023, registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tumakuru has Document No.TMK-1-01725-2023-2024 from the erstwhile owner Nawab Jan/respondent No.5 and others. On purchase of the said property, the petitioner had submitted an application to effect the Khata / E-Khata in his name on 29.04.2023. At that stage, the inspection of the property was held, the measurements were taken and E-Khata was issued to the petitioner. 3. Subsequently, respondent No.6 had given a representation to respondent No.4 stating that the Katha of the property obtained by the petitioner is for excessive measurement and had called upon respondent no. 4 to correct the same. Respondent No.2 had therefore issued an endorsement on 26.07.2023 stating that respondent No.5 vendor of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 the petitioner had got measured excessive land and sold excessive land. Their measurement being wrong, the same is required to be corrected. In pursuance of which, respondent No.4 directed the said measurements in the E-katha to be corrected. The petitioner challenged the same before respondent No.3, who by way of the order dated 5.8.2023 at Annexure-A, being of the opinion that the dispute is civil in nature had instructed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for due redressal. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The submission of Sri Ramesh K. R., learned counsel for the petitioner is that there being a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the measurements of the property having been made during the course of inspection and thereafter the Khata having been issued, the area could not have been reduced on the basis of a representation submitted by respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 No. 6 and on an alleged notice having been issued to respondent No.5 considering the response of respondent No.5 that he had executed a sale deed for excess land. 5. His submission is that there being a registered sale deed and a measurement having carried out and mere statement on the part of respondent No.5 could not have been believed by respondent No.4 and an endorsement so issued. His further submission is that an appeal having been filed before respondent No.3, respondent No.3 ought to have set aside the finding / endorsement issued by respondent No.4 and then directed the parties to approach the Civil Court instead of continuing the endorsement issued by respondent No.4. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6, submits that he is a neighbour of the house of the petitioner and in view of the excess land covered under the E-Khata which has been issued, the ingress and egress of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 respondent No.6 to his property has been adversely affected and as such, he is a proper party to have objected to the said entries having been made, the notice having been issued to respondent No.5, respondent No.5 having categorically stated that he had sold excess land believing that the vacant area in front of his house belongs to him. The submission is that the vacant area has been used by the general public and if the petitioner were to make use of the same, the rights of the general public including that of respondent No.6 would be adversely affected. 7. Heard learned counsel Sri Ramesh K.R., Sri A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for respondents-2 to 4, Smt. Spoorthi V., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Harish G., for respondent No.6 and perused the papers. 8. This is rather a strange case where respondent No.4 on the basis of a written statement, which is contrary to a registered sale deed has issued the impugned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 endorsement. Thereafter on appeal, respondent No.3 is of the opinion that the dispute is civil in nature and has called upon the petitioner to approach the Civil Court while keeping the endorsement issued by respondent No.4 intact. If respondent No.3 had come to a conclusion that the dispute is civil in nature it was but required of him to set aside the endorsement and then direct the parties to approach the Civil Court. Such an action not having been taken by respondent No.4, but having continued with the endorsement issued by respondent No.4, is unsustainable. If the dispute is civil innature, neither respondent No.4 nor respondent No.3 would have jurisdiction to decide the matter. Both of them ought to have advised the parties to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is not permissible for respondent No.4 to exercise jurisdiction and thereafter respondent No.3 in an appeal to contend that the dispute is civil - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 in nature and not interfere with the order passed by respondent No. 4. 9. In that view of the matter, the very exercise of jurisdiction by respondent No.4 being bad in law has been confirmed by respondent No.3, I passed the following order: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 26.07.2023, bearing No.GraPan.Chi/06/2023-24 issued by respondent No.4 at Annexure-F is quashed. iii. The original entry in the name of the petitioner is directed to be restored within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv. In the event of respondent No.6 approaching the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2890 WP No. 20599 of 2023 said Court would have to consider the matter on merits after trial being concluded. v. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the contention of either of the parties. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26