Dismissed¶58

Eshwaramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2025WP/5977/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khatha dispute; Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, Section 269 appeal; Taluk Executive Officer order dated 25.09.2024; writ petition under Articles 226/227 dismissed; possession asserted without proof of title or mode of acquisition; khatha based on documents of respondent No.8; better-title claims deferred to Civil Court; Vadaguru Gram Panchayat; property No.150, Janjer No.54, Ajjappanahalli Village, Huthuru Hobli, Kolar Taluk; heirs of Munivenkatappa vs Earegowda family.

What did the court decide?

None beyond dismissal; it remains open to the petitioners to work out their remedy before the Civil Court in accordance with law, and counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 is permitted to file a memo of appearance within 10 days. ¶58

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who did not disclose how they came into possession of the property nor establish their ownership, could assail the khatha made out in the name of respondent No.8. +1 more

¶58

Court's answer

Until the petitioners establish how they came to own the property, they cannot assail the khatha made out in the name of respondent No.8.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioners claim better title than respondent No.8, they must work out their remedy before the Civil Court and cannot challenge the khatha in this writ petition.

¶58

Key takeaways

The order passed by respondent No.5 holding the khatha made out by respondent No.2 to be just and proper does not warrant interference in this writ petition.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj J., oral order dated 09.12.2025) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order dated 25.09.2024 of the Taluk Executive Officer, Kolar Taluk (Case No. SO.GRA.PO. ME NO. 5/2020; cited in the body as No.UÁ.æ¥ÀA.ªÉÄÃ:05/2020), which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 against the khatha recorded in respect of property bearing No.150, Janjer No.54, Ajjappanahalli Village, Huthuru Hobli, Kolar Taluk, in the names of respondent Nos.6 to 8 (described in later passages as khatha in the name of respondent No.8). Petitioners, widow and children of late Munivenkatappa claiming actual possession of a vacant site, disclosed neither the manner in which they acquired possession nor their ownership; the khatha rested on documents furnished by respondent No.8. Held: until the petitioners establish how they came to own the property they cannot assail the khatha; a claim of better title must be pursued before the Civil Court; the appellate order confirming the khatha is just and proper and warrants no interference. Petition dismissed with liberty to litigate title in the Civil Court; counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 permitted to file memo of appearance within 10 days.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:52035 WP No. 5977 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5977 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ESHWARAMMA

¶9

W/O LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶10

VARALAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGEDABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶11

SHRIVANI

¶12

D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶13

MOHAN

¶14

S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶15

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

ALL ARE RESIDING AT AJAPANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK. KOLAR DISTRICT-563101

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶21

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52035 WP No. 5977 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VADAGURU GRAM PANCHAYAT KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR(D), 563101.

¶25

THE SECRETARY OFFICER, VADAGURU GRAM PANCHAYAT KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR(D), 563101.

¶26

THE PRESIDENT OFFICER, VADAGURU GRAM PANCHAYAT KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR(D), 563101.

¶27

THE TALUK EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICER, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR(D), 563101.

¶28

EAREGOWDA S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT AJJAPAALHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHUR HOBALI, KOLAR TALUK. KOLAR(D), 563101.

¶29

JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O EAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT AJJAPAALHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHUR HOBALI, KOLAR TALUK. KOLAR(D), 563101.

¶30

MANJUANTHA S/O MALLAPPA MAJOR RESIDING AT AJJAPAALHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHUR HOBALI, KOLAR TALUK. KOLAR(D), 563101.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.H.K.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 9.12.2025, NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52035 WP No. 5977 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE 'A' PASSED BY THE TALUK EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICER, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT IN CASE NO. SO.GRA.PO. ME NO. 5/2020 DATED 25.09.2024.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.UÁ.æ¥ÀA.ªÉÄÃ:05/2020 dated 25.09.2024 passed by the respondent

¶40

No.5, by which the khatha of the property bearing No.150, Janjer No.54, Ajjappanahalli Village, Huthuru Hobli, Kolar Taluk, which stood in the name of the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8, was questioned but was rejected.

¶41

(i) The petitioners contend that the aforesaid

¶42

property belongs to Munivenkatappa, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who purportedly were in actual possession. After the death of Sri.Munivenkatappa, the petitioners claim that they are in possession of the property. They claim that an illegal khatha

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:52035 WP No. 5977 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

was made out in the name of the respondent No.8 in respect of a non-existent property bearing No.150 and they have been trying to put up construction.

¶47

(ii) The petitioners claim that the property in their possession is vacant site, where a old house existed which had collapsed and that they were using it for storing hay and manure. The petitioners therefore challenged the order passed by the respondent No.2 before respondent No.5 in an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The respondent No.5 after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal in terms of the impugned order. The petitioners therefore being aggrieved by the said order are before this Court.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the khatha of the property is wrongly made out in the name of the respondent No.8, though the petitioners are in possession. He therefore contends that the respondent No.2 before effecting khatha ought to have conducted a spot inspection to verify whether the respondent No.8 is in possession of the property or not. He therefore contends that the impugned order

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:52035 WP No. 5977 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

passed by the respondent No.2 and confirmed by the respondent No.5 are illegal and warrants interference.

¶53

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 5 submitted that the impugned order making out the khatha in the name of the respondent No.8 is passed based on the documents furnished by the respondent No.8 and therefore the petitioners cannot assail the khatha made out in the name of the respondent No.8 more particularly when the petitioners have not produced any documents to establish that they are the owners of the property. He also contends that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.5, they have to work out their remedy before the Civil Court.

¶54

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶55

The petitioners claim that the property bearing Janjer No.54 and khatha No.54 situated at Ajjappanahalli, Huthuru Hobli, Kolar Taluk, measuring east-west 30 feet and north-south 40 feet was owned and possessed by

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52035 WP No. 5977 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Munivenkatappa, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and that he was in possession of the said property. They also claimed that after the death of Munivenkatappa, they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the said property. However, the petitioners have not disclosed as to how they came into possession of the said property. They also have not disclosed their ownership and as to how they became owners of the aforesaid property. It appears that the khatha made out in the name of respondent No.8 was based on certain documents. Therefore, until the petitioners established the way they came to own the property, they cannot assail the khatha made out in the name of the respondent No.8. If the petitioners have better title than the respondent No.8, they have to work out their remedy before the Civil Court and they cannot certainly challenge the khatha made out in the name of the respondent No.8. Consequently, the order passed by the respondent No.5 holding the khatha made out by the respondent No.2 is just and proper, does not warrant interference in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed . It is however open for the petitioners to

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:52035 WP No. 5977 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

work out their remedy before the Civil Court in accordance with

¶63

law.

¶64