This writ petition sought to quash a Panchayat order and direct issuance of a Khatha in dispute. The High Court held that the dispute regarding title, right, and possession was for a competent civil court to decide, finding no infirmity in the Panchayat's order rejecting the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION No.4312 OF 2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE G.K. RAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT HALEPALYA POST OFFICE ANNAURA GATE CYCLE SHOP TIPATUR TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
ARASIKERE - 573 103. HASANA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K. SHOBHA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; R2-SERVED SRI. B. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ENDORSEMENT DATED.10.8.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R4 AND THE OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE BEARING DATED:08.08.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-J FORWARDED BY THE R-4 TO THE R-3 AND DIRECT THE R-4 TO EFFECT THE KHATHA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Present petition is by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, in the nature of writ, quashing endorsement dated 10.08.2018 vide Annexure-D issued by the respondent No.4 and the official correspondence bearing No. Gan.Gra.Pan.No.22/2019-2020 dated 08.08.2019 vide Annexure-J forwarded by the respondent No.4 to effect the Khatha in favour of the petitioner;
b) Cost and such other reliefs deemed fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
beneficiary of the allotment of a site in Gandasi village, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District under "Navagraha Vasathi Yojane 2001-2002" as per Annexure-A where her name was reflected at Serial No.2 in the list of allottees. That the site in question bearing No.4 in Ward No.147/2 measuring 40' x 30' was allotted to her in terms of Hakkupatra No.(95)239731 at Annexure-B on 13.06.2001. That she has paid the property tax thereon. But
4
unfortunately due to the demise of her husband, she had to move to Bangalore for her livelihood. Later, when she returned to her place, she found that her site had been allegedly allotted to Respondent No.5. It is the further case of the petitioner that once the site has been allotted to the petitioner, respondent-authority ought not to have allotted the same site to Respondent No.5. Since allotment made by Respondent No.5 is illegal, respondentauthority has to resolve the matter at its end.
5
Annexure-E submits that the name of the Respondent No.5 has been mutated in the revenue records and she has constructed a house and residing there for about 18 years. It is further submitted that in view of the claim by the petitioner she was advised to approach a competent Court of law and after determination of her rights seek for change of khatha by the authorities.
6
Annexure 'B'. In one of the correspondence, the respondent-authority have pointed out that though the petitioner is seeking change of khatha, but has not produced the original Hakku Patra while the original Hakku Patra has been in possession and custody of Respondent No.5.
7
Petition lacks merits and stands rejected.
It is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner seeking such remedy as may be advised.
Sd/JUDGE
bnv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with the Panchayat's endorsement directing the petitioner to approach a competent court to adjudicate the dispute over right, title, and possession of the site.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a change of Khatha by the Panchayat authority without such adjudication.
Whether the endorsement denying immediate change of Khatha in the presence of a disputed possession is free from legal infirmity.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Rathnamma W/o Late G.K. Raju
The State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development
The Chief Planning Officer Zillapanchayath Hasana
The Chief Executive Officer Thaluk Panchayath Arasikere
Panchayat Development Officer Gandasi Grama Panchayath Arasikere
Sajeeda Banu W/o Nazeeer Ahamed
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court