- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15887 WP No. 7613 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 7613 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUNANDAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT HAKKIMANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE SHEELANERE POST AND HOBLI K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY-560 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 811. 3. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHUNCHANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH BELUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 811. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15887 WP No. 7613 of 2025 4. THE SECRETARY CHUNCHANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH BELUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 811. 5. SRI. PUTTARAJU V. S/O VEKATARAMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 6. SMT. SHRUTHI R. W/O PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT RAMANANDANAGAR VILLAGE CHUNCHANAHALLI POST, BELUR HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 811. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 09.07.2024 BEARING NO.02/2024-25 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING OLD SY.NO.124/P1 AND PRESENT SY.NO.124 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 2 ACRES VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15887 WP No. 7613 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent no.2 dated 09.07.2024 bearing no.vÁ¥ÀA£Á/PÁ¤C£Áå¥ÀæPÀgÀt¸ÀASÉå:02/24-25 in respect of land bearing old Sy.No.124/P1 and present Sy.No.124 measuring to an extent of 2 acres, the petitioner herein has preferred the instant writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, she inherited the property from her ancestors and she is in possession of the same. However, the authorities concerned have mutated the khata in favour of respondent nos.5 and 6. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred an appeal before the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath (respondent no.2). The same has been rejected by giving the following endorsement: "ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, £ÁUÀªÀÄAUÀ® vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀÆîgÀÄ ºÉÆç½ ZÀÄAZÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ ZÀÄAZÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15887 WP No. 7613 of 2025 124/¦1 gÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ¦vÁæfðvÀªÁV §A¢zÀÄÝ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA:124 ªÀÄÆ®vÀB ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:DCDRno.40/56-57 ¢£ÁAPÀ:27/07/2024 gÀ°è vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀjAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÀVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À°ègÀĪÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀªÀgÀÄ 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà ¥ÀÄlÖgÁdÄ ©£ï ªÉAPÀlgÀªÀÄt¨ÉÆë gÀªÀgÀ E-¸ÀévÀÄÛ SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:-152100501420169 ºÁUÀÆ ²æêÀÄw ±ÀÈw.Dgï PÉÆÃA ¥ÀÄlÖgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀ E-¸ÀévÀÄÛ SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:-152100501420170£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ¸ÀzÀj E-¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À gÀzÀÝwUÁV ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 269(1) gÀ1993 gÀr G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°èùgÀÄwÛÃj. ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ¸ÀªÉÃð £ÀA§gï 124gÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢¹zÀAvÉ vÁªÀÅ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀAvÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà WÀ£À ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ £ÁUÀªÀÄAUÀ®(eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹) E°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå:M.J¸ï.250/2015 gÀ°è zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß E-£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.07.2024PÉÌ EzÀÄÝ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ DzÉñÀzÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÁådå ¸ÀévÀÄÛ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄQÌAvÀ ªÉÄð£À ºÀAvÀzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɸÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹ vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ." 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that, the impugned endorsement has been issued without application of mind. The civil dispute between petitioner and respondent nos.5 and 6 only pertains to an injunction suit and not with regard to title of the property. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the property, so, khata had to be issued in her favour and without examining the case on merits, without application - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15887 WP No. 7613 of 2025 of mind, merely on the ground that there is an original suit pending, the request to the petitioner has been rejected. 5. The petitioner, along with the petition has produced the judgment passed in O.S.246/2015 (erroneously mentioned as O.S.No.250/2015 in the impugned endorsement). The judgment reveals that the petitioner and few others are plaintiffs and respondent nos.5 and few others are defendants in the said original suit and the original suit pertains to the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition. In the said original suit, though it is filed for injunction, the following issue is framed: 'Whether plaintiffs prove that, they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?' The said issue has been ordered in the negative and the suit has been dismissed. 6. In the light of the judgment passed in O.S.No.246/2015, unless the same is overturned by an appellate Court, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15887 WP No. 7613 of 2025 question of respondent no.2 considering the case of petitioner favourably does not arise. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed in O.S.No.246/2015. However, he fairly submits that no interim order has been passed in her favour in the said appeal. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 9. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned for change of khata if she were to succeed in the appeal filed against O.S.No.246/2015 and if such an application is made, the authorities concerned shall consider the same in accordance with law. 10. This order will also not come in the way of the petitioner preferring a suit for declaration of title if she so intends. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG