Allowed¶40

Smt Gopamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2025WP/19044/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), W.P. No.19044 of 2021 (LB-RES), decided 07.02.2025 by Justice N S Sanjay Gowda. Keywords: khata cancellation; khata restoration; Thoranahalli Grama Panchayath; Taluk Executive Officer, Malur; Kolar district; Articles 226 and 227; injunction suit O.S. No.385 of 2013 dismissed; appeal R.A. No.9 of 2015 dismissed for non-prosecution; declaratory decree reserved; respondent's claim prima facie untenable; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.07.2021 quashed; khata restored in the petitioner's name, subject to any declaratory decree that may be passed by the Civil Court in respect of the property against the petitioner. ¶40

Smt Gopamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 29.07.2021 passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the khata standing in the petitioner's name can be sustained, given that respondent No.4's suit claim over the property was dismissed.

¶32

Court's answer

The claim of respondent No.4 over the property is prima facie untenable, since his suit O.S. No.385 of 2013 was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal R.A. No.9 of 2015 was also dismissed (for non-prosecution).

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order cancelling the petitioner's khata cannot be sustained and is quashed.

¶38

Key takeaways

The khata shall stand restored in the name of the petitioner.ratio¶39
Restoration of the khata is subject to any declaratory decree that may be passed by the Civil Court in respect of the property against the petitioner; if respondent No.4 files a comprehensive suit seeking a declaratory decree and obtains such a decree, it would bind both parties.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Khata cancellation - Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 29.07.2021 passed by respondent No.3 (Taluk Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath Malur) cancelling the khata standing in the petitioner's name in respect of property bearing Old Kaneshumari No.15, New No.15AB/2/111 at Gerupura Village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District - Respondent No.4, who laid claim over the property, had instituted O.S. No.385 of 2013 which was dismissed by the Trial Court, and R.A. No.9 of 2015 was also dismissed, though for non-prosecution - Held, claim of respondent No.4 prima facie untenable - Impugned order quashed - Khata restored in petitioner's name, subject to any declaratory decree that may be passed by the Civil Court, which, if obtained by respondent No.4 in a comprehensive suit, would bind both parties - Writ petition allowed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5684 WP No. 19044 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 19044 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. GOPAMMA W/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT GERUPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BYRANAHALLI POST MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. A.G. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ

¶13

DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶15

OFFICE SITUATED AT

¶16

M.S. BUILDING NEAR K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE SECRETARY THORANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:5684 WP No. 19044 of 2021

¶21

MALUR TALUK, MALUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶22

SRI H. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT: GERUPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M. NARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.07.2021 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING OLD KANESHUMARI NO.15, NEW NO.15AB/2/111 CONSISTING OF STONES ROOFED HOUSE AND MANGALURU TITLE ROOFED HOUSE MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF EAST TO WEST 55 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 47 FEET SITUATED AT GERUPARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

By the impugned order, respondent No.3—

¶29

Panchayat has directed the Khata which was standing in the name of the petitioner to be

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5684 WP No. 19044 of 2021

¶31

cancelled and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 who made a claim over this property had instituted a suit in O.S. No.385 of 2013, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court and an appeal filed against it in R.A. No.9 of 2015 has also been dismissed, though for non-prosecution. It is therefore clear that the claim of respondent No.4 over the said property is prima facie untenable.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 however submits that the suit was for injunction and therefore nothing much can be read into dismissal of the suit.

¶34

Since the Khata was standing in the name of the petitioner, the same will have to be restored in favour of the petitioner and if respondent No.4

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5684 WP No. 19044 of 2021

¶36

were to file a comprehensive suit, seeking for a declaratory decree and obtains such a decree,

¶37

then obviously the said decree would bind both the parties.

¶38

I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed .

¶39

The Khata shall stand restored in the name of the petitioner. It is however made clear that it would be subject to any declaratory decree that may be passed by the Civil Court in respect of the property in question against the petitioner.

¶40

The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶41

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶42

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Smt Gopamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gopamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srikkanth S Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Mahabalesha K B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Kishore Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Ummer Farooq Maved Vs the Chief Commissioner

Chetan R Uchil Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. Riyaz Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Karnataka