Sri. N. Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2025WP/14189/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata registration/transfer; registered gift deed dated 17.02.1979 executed by khatedar Muniyappa during pendency of suit; Appellate Authority order dated 5.3.2019; change of Khata subject to ultimate result of O.S. No.224 of 2010; Chikka Gattiganabbe Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District; petitioner N. Rajanna; respondent No.4 Vijaya Kumari; State of Karnataka Department of Rural Development and Panchayathraj; PDO Doddagattiganabbe Grama Panchayath; Taluk Executive Officer; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the writ petition was disposed of with the Appellate Authority's order upheld, the change of Khata in favour of respondent No.4 being expressly subject to the ultimate result of O.S. No.224 of 2010. ¶¶39

Sri. N. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1799 WP No. 14189 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 14189 OF 2019 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. N. RAJANNA S/O LATE NANJAPLPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT: CHIKKA GATTIGANABBE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TLAUK, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT. PIN 562 114. (THOUGH THE PETITIONER IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AND HE IS NOT CLAIMING ANY BENEFIT UNDER SENIOR CITIZEN)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. A G NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPEMENT

¶14

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND PANCHAYATHRAJ REPRESNETED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE SITUATED AT:

¶16

M.S. BUILDING, NEARK.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶17

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO) DODDAGATTIGANABBE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 114.

¶18

THE TALUK EXECUTIVE OFFICER (E.O) TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:1799 WP No. 14189 of 2019

¶21

HOSAKOTE TALUK NEAR OLD BUS STAND MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, HOSAKOTE TOWN 562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

SMT. VIJAYA KUMARI W/O NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA GATTIGANABBE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PIN 562 114.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.M.S.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5.3.2019 PASSED IN CASE DATED 5.3.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY BEARING KANESHUMARI NO.SL.NO.79, PROPERTY NO.6/3 AND 6/18 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF EAST-WEST87 FEET AND NORTH-SOUTH 48 FEET CONSISTING OF AC SHEET ROOF HOUSE MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF EAST -WEST 33 FEET AND NORTH-SOUTH 36 FEET SITUATED AT CHIKKA GATTIGANABBE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:1799 WP No. 14189 of 2019

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is challenging the order by which the Appellate Authority has directed the Khata to be registered in the name of respondent No.4 since there was a registered gift deed in her favor.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this registered gift deed dated 17.02.1979 has been executed by the Khatedar—Muniyappa, during the pendency of the suit and therefore, it would have no significance and the Khatha ought not to have been transferred in the name of respondent No.4.

¶33

In my view, since there is a registered gift deed in favor of respondent No.4, the authorities are bound to transfer the Khata in favor of respondent No.4. Therefore, there can be no infirmity found in the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

¶34