- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3456-DB WA No. 1705 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1705 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B. L. GOPAL S/O. LATE B. LAKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, CARE OF SRI. BALAKRISHNA, GENERAL MERCHANT, RESIDENT AT AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, MUDIGERE ROAD, BELURU, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.N.BHAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DC OFFICER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201. Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3456-DB WA No. 1705 of 2025 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OFFICE, BELURU, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115. 4. TERRITORY MANAGER BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION, BEHIND FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, METAGHALLI, MYSURU-570 016. 5. SRI. B. N. PUNEETH S/O. B. L. NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. NEAR SHRI SHANKARESHWARA TEMPLE, MUDGERE ROAD, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. T.N.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-18659/2025 (LB- RES) DATED 14.07.2025 AND BY DISMISSING THE WP AS PRAYED FORb) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3456-DB WA No. 1705 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18659/2025 instituted by the respondent No.5. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District in a revision filed under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Vide the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has ordered to cancel the Khata standing in the name of the petitioner in respect of the schedule property. Consequently, in compliance of the said order, the Chief Commissioner, Town Municipal Council has cancelled the Khata standing in the name of the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3456-DB WA No. 1705 of 2025 4. It is well settled that the Municipal Records are only meant for determining the tax liability and are provisional and subject to the outcome of pending civil disputes, if any, between the parties. The dispute regarding possession, title and validity of the gift deeds cannot be gone into by the Municipal Authorities. Bearing this settled position of law in mind, we now would take note of the facts leading to filing of the aforestated writ petition and the present writ appeal before this Court. 5. The subject matter of the dispute relates to the property bearing Sy.No.84/2 measuring 2 acres 31 guntas. The petitioner claims that an extent of 1 acre 15.08 guntas was owned by his grandfather and an extent of 1 acre 15.08 guntas was the self acquired property of his father in the aforesaid survey number. The petitioner asserts his right and title in respect of the land to an extent of 1 acre 15.08 guntas, which was the self acquired property of his father in aforesaid survey number under a gift deed executed by his father. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 05.06.2025 had adjudicated the title over the property while - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3456-DB WA No. 1705 of 2025 holding that the land to an extent of 1 acre 15.08 guntas, which was the subject matter of the registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner, was the joint family's ancestral property. In arriving at such a conclusion, the Deputy Commissioner had placed reliance on a compromise decree passed in O.S.No.31/2013. 7. Learned Single Judge has examined the said compromise decree and has taken note of the fact that item No.1 i.e, the land bearing Sy.No.84/2 measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas was directed to be equally divided amongst the family members as per the compromise decree. However, in respect of another extent of land measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas in Sy.No.84/2, there was no express reference in the compromise decree indicating whether the aforesaid portion was also part of the compromise decree or not. 8. It may also be relevant to take note of the fact that the respondent No.4 himself has filed a suit bearing O.S.No.511/2023 challenging the validity of the gift deed and another suit bearing O.S.No.46/2024 was also filed by respondent No.4 along with one Sri B.L.Balakrishna for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3456-DB WA No. 1705 of 2025 relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas in Sy.No.84/2. Thus, when the suits are pending seeking cancellation of the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas, the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of the power under Section 32(1) of the Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964, should not have come to the conclusion that the land which is subject matter of the gift deed was also included in the compromise decree. 9. We have already observed that no question of title, possession, validity of the gift deed etc., can be decided by the Municipal Authorities. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 10. Having taken note of the aforesaid facts and the settled position of law, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. However, once the rights of the parties get crystallized on conclusion of the aforesaid suits, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3456-DB WA No. 1705 of 2025 necessary entries in the Municipal records shall be effected accordingly. 11. It is directed that the Trial Court shall not get influenced by any observations made by this Court or by the learned Single Judge, while deciding the pending suits. 12. With the aforesaid observations, we dismiss the writ appeal. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17