Dismissed¶36

Sri Srirama v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2025WP/33790/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC writ petition (LB-RES) on katha/mutation dispute in Grama Panchayat records; Taluk Panchayat appellate authority declines to adjudicate a private partition claim (alleged partition dated 22.04.1987) and refers parties to the Civil Court; writ dismissed; Articles 226/227; Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District; intestate succession/joint inheritance claim over Gramatana No.13; no precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed. The petitioner remains at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law to establish his right to the property in question. ¶36

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48931 WP No. 33790 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33790 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SRIRAMA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT- CHINNAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND APELLATE AUTHORITY, TALUK PANCHAYATH, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL -583 212.

¶15

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MANTAPA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48931 WP No. 33790 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI. RAMAIAH

¶19

S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT- CHINNAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 105.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY V, HCGP FOR R1)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN APPEAL NO. 01/2023-24 VIDE ANX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO MUTATE/ENTER KATHA IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE PETITIONER AND R-4 AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.01/2023-2024 vide Annexure A by which an appeal filed by him challenging the katha that was brought out in the name of the respondent No. 4 was rejected.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48931 WP No. 33790 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The petitioner claims that the property bearing Gramatana/Khnesmari No. 13, house property No. 13, Katha No.13/13 measuring 60 feet x 70 feet situated at Chinnaianapalya village, Mantapa Grama Panchayath limits, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District was owned and possessed by Munivenkatappa, his grandfather. He contends that his father and the respondent No.4 are the two sons of Munivenkatappa. He claims that his grandfather died intestate and after the death of his father, he and the respondent No. 4 jointly succeeded to the aforesaid property. He contends that the respondent No.4 however had obtained the katha of the property in question in his name which was challenged by him before the respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 1/2023-24. It is contended that the respondent No.2 rejected the appeal on the ground that the questions raised by the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 had to be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court and directed the parties to work out their remedy before the Civil Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

¶31

though the respondent No. 4 claimed before the respondent

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:48931 WP No. 33790 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

No. 2 that there was a partition on 22.04.1987 between the father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and that the property in question fell to the share of the respondent No. 4, no documents were produced before the respondent No. 2. He therefore contends that the defence raised by the respondent No. 2 was false and there was no justification for the Kartha of the property in question to be continued in the name of the respondent No. 4.

¶36

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 shows that the respondent No. 4 was categorical in stating that there was a partition between the father of the petitioner and himself on 22.04.1987 and the property in question fell to the share of the respondent No. 4. As rightly held by the respondent No. 2, this contention of the respondent No. 4 could not be examined or adjudicated upon by the respondent No.2 and therefore he rightly relegated the parties before the Civil Court. There is no error warranting interference in this petition. Accordingly the petition is dismissed . The petitioner is at liberty to take necessary steps

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:48931 WP No. 33790 of 2025

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

in accordance with law to establish his right to the property in

¶41

question.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43