Smt Shashiyamma @ Shasikala Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:46019 WP No. 54677 of 2018

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 54677 OF 2018 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHASHIYAMMA @ SHASIKALA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O RAMANNA R/AT VENKATAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD C. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

HOSKOTE TALUK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER HOSKOTE TALUK,

¶15

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114

¶16

LAKKONDAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562114

¶17

CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA R/AT VENKATAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46019 WP No. 54677 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶22

AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2023

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶25

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SRI. S.N.SAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH RESOLUTION DT.NIL PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-N BY DECLARING SAME AS OPPOSED TO LAW AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the resolution dated Nil passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure - N) and to direct respondent No.3 to restore her name in the property register in respect of the property bearing Khatha No.375 of Venkatapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote Taluk.

¶30

(i) The petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner of the property bearing janjaru No.375/property No.375

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:46019 WP No. 54677 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

situated at Venkatapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru rural district.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner claimed that the aforesaid property belonged to the State Government and that she was in longstanding and continuous possession of the property, which was recognized by the Panchayat by issuance of a possession certificate. The petitioner claims that based on the said possession certificate, her name was entered in the property register after the property was assessed to property tax for the year 2009 -2010.

¶36

(iii) She claims that thereafter a house-list number was assigned to the property and property tax was demanded from time to time, which she paid. When things stood thus, some strangers attempted to disturb her possession which compelled her to file O.S.No.61/2013 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote wherein an order of interim injunction was granted vide order dated 28.08.2014. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants again attempted to interfere with her possession and after verification she found that the Khatha standing in her name was cancelled. She further submits that

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46019 WP No. 54677 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

at a meeting of the executive committee of respondent No.2, the Khatha that stood in the name of the petitioner was cancelled, pursuant to which respondent No.3 scored off the entries in her name in the property tax demand register and tax assessment register etc.,

¶40

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said cancellation is before this Court primarily contending that she was not heard before respondent Nos.2 and 3 resolved to cancel the Khatha.

¶41

(i) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submited that the petitioner ought to have been heard before the Khatha that stood in her name was revoked. He submits that the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.61/2013 for perpetual injunction was decreed and therefore, there is sufficient material to establish that the petitioner was in possession of the property.

¶42

(ii) He further contends that the State Government had not taken any steps in the matter, but some third-party strangers have taken steps to get the Khatha cancelled. He therefore submits that the impugned proceedings require to be

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:46019 WP No. 54677 of 2018

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

set at nought and the name of the petitioner requires to be restored in the property tax demand register.

¶47

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent

¶48

Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner has challenged a resolution passed by respondent No.3 and therefore she is bound to invoke the appeal remedy before the Appellate Authority under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. He further contends that the petitioner does not possess any title to the property in question and that she is hinging her claim solely on a certificate issued by respondent No.3 affirming that she is in possession of the property. He submits that the petitioner herself admits that the property belonged to the State Government and therefore in the absence of a valid grant in her favour, she cannot claim any right to have her name entered in the property tax register.

¶49

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:46019 WP No. 54677 of 2018

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioner is bound to challenge the impugned resolution in an appeal, though is justified, is not a straight jacket which should be applied blindly. When the impugned resolution is passed without hearing the petitioner, her fundamental right stands breached, and she is entitled to approach this Court against such breach. Therefore the contention that the Writ Petition is not maintainable is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

¶54

It is now well settled that entry of the name of a person in the property tax demand register is based on valid transfer of title and is for the purpose of identifying the person who is responsible for payment of tax. In the instant case, the petitioner admits that the property in question belongs to the State Government and that she is in continuous possession of the said property for a long time and on that basis claims that she has perfected her title. This therefore, demonstrates that the petitioner does not possess any title to the property in question. The possession certificate relied on by the petitioner is not a possession certificate in the real sense of the term, but

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:46019 WP No. 54677 of 2018

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

is merely an affirmation by respondent No.3 that the petitioner is in possession of the property. The said certificate does not disclose that the respondent No.3 had placed the petitioner in possession of the said property.

¶59

In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim any right for continuation of her name in the Panchayat records. Even assuming that the petitioner was not heard before her name was deleted from the records of the panchyat, she has not made out any ground to demonstrate that the impugned resolution passed by respondent No.3 and approved by respondent No.2 is not just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the impugned resolution does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is

¶60

dismissed.

¶61

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶62

HJ

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt Shashiyamma @ Shasikala v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shashiyamma @ Shasikala v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rajashekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri. K. Keshava Acharya Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Gowramma W/O Late Venkatesh Vs Smt. Nagamma W/O Venkatesh

Sri Tanveer Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T. Venkataramu @ T. v. Ramu Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Srinivas v Vs State of Karnataka