The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to restore property entries in Panchayat registers. The Court held that due to a pending civil suit between the parties, revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide rival property claims.
The writ petition seeking to quash the impugned revenue order and restore property entries was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 41091 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/O BYALAKONENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TLAUK BANGALORE-562162
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE R/AT BYALAKONENAHALLI VILLAGE LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TLAUK BANGALORE-562162
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 SRI. T.N. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANENXURE-Q AND RESTORE THE ENTRIES IN THE REGISTERS OF PANCHAYATH IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING JANJURU/KHATA NO.104/20/88 OF BYLAKONENANAHALLI VILLAGE, MACHOHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IN THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners
challenging Annexure-Q and to restore the entries in the registers of Panchayath in respect of property bearing Janjuru/Khata No.104/20/88 of Bylakonenanahalli Village, Machohalli Grama Panchayath.
The khata of the property bearing House List No.19 of Bylakonenahalli Village, stands in the name of Chikkarasappa, the grand father of the petitioners and after his demise, the khata was transferred in the name of the father of the petitioners. The father of the petitioners died leaving behind the petitioners. After the demise of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners submitted an application for transfer of khata in the name of their mother, i.e., Smt. Siddamma. The respondent has transferred the said khata in the name of the mother of
the petitioners, vide M.R.35/2009-10. There was a partition between the petitioners and Siddamma and the property in question was divided into three parts and registered in the name of the petitioners. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, aggrieved by the order of mutation, changed the khata in the name of the petitioners, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 allowed the appeal by its order dated 21.05.2016. Hence, this writ petition.
The mother of the petitioners died leaving behind the petitioners. After the demise of the mother of the petitioners, the petitioners submitted an application to change the katha in the name of the petitioners. The said application was allowed and khata was changed in the name of petitioners vide M.R.35/2009-10. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, aggrieved by M.R.35/2009-10, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 21.05.2016 vide Annexure-Q allowed the appeal. Respondent No.2 has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.
prays to dismiss the petition.
possessed by the grand father of the petitioners. After his demise, the said property was transferred in the name of the father of the petitioners. The father of the petitioners died on 09.03.1994 leaving behind the petitioners and
their mother as the legal heirs. After the demise of the petitioners' father, the mother of the petitioners submitted an application to change the khata in her name on behalf of herself and family. The mother of the petitioners died leaving behind the petitioners as her legal representatives. After the demise of mother of the petitioners, the petitioners submitted an application for change the khata in their names. The said application was came to be allowed. The khata was changed in the name of the petitioners in respect of property in question. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, aggrieved by the order changing the khata in the name of the petitioners, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. During the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.2, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.137/2016 for the relief of permanent injunction and the petitioners have produced the copy of order sheet in O.S.No.137/2016 vide Annexure-R. As the civil suit is pending between the parties, any order passed by respondent No.2 shall be subject to the out come of the said civil suit. Hence, I do not find any grounds to
NC: 2024:KHC:32437 WP No. 41091 of 2016
entertain the writ petition. In so far as rights of the parties are concerned, its only Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties. As there is rival claim between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6, respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties.
passing the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
SSB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to decide the rival claims to property while a civil suit is pending between the parties.
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed in view of the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same subject matter.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jayaramaiah and others
State of Karnataka
Executive Officer, Bangalore North Taluk Panchayath, Yelahanka
Kadabgere Grama Panchayath
Machohalli Grama Panchayath
B.K. Hanumantharaju
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
