Dismissed¶60

Smt. Sushilamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2025WP/984/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khata/mutation mandamus; Gramatana No.100/163, Dodda Hosahalli, Channarayapatna hobli, Devanahalli Taluk; Bettakote Grama Panchayat records; pending declaratory suit O.S. No.434/2018 bars khata entry; suppression of material facts (notice dated 27.11.2019; suit O.S. No.441/2018 dismissed 18.04.2023); writ petition dismissed with liberty after suit; Articles 226 and 227; Karnataka HC, WP No. 984 of 2021 (LB-RES), R. Nataraj J., 30.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; it is left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs from respondent No.4 once O.S. No.434/2018 is decided in her favour. ¶60

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; it is left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs from respondent No.4 once O.S. No.434/2018 is decided in her favour.

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to enter her name in the Panchayat records/khata register in respect of Gramatana No.100/163 (852.14 sq m), Dodda Hosahalli, Devanahalli Taluk. +1 more

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Since the suit in O.S. No.434/2018 for declaration of title is pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, respondent No.4 cannot take any decision to enter the petitioner's name in the Panchayat records unless and until that suit is decided.

¶55

Key takeaways

The petitioner suppressed the filing of O.S. No.434/2018 and the letter of intimation/notice issued by respondent No.4 dated 27.11.2019; she is therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking mandamus to the Executive Officer, Devanahalli Taluk Panchayath and the Panchayat Development Officer, Bettakote Grama Panchayath to effect khata in the petitioner's name for Gramatana No.100/163 (852.14 sq m), Dodda Hosahalli, resting on an alleged 1963 Panchayat resolution and a later direction by respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 contended that no 1963 resolution existed on record, that a rival (Mr. Ashok) was in possession, and that a declaration-of-title suit O.S. No.434/2018 (petitioner as defendant No.1, PDO as defendant No.2) was pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, an endorsement dated 29.11.2019 having deferred khata entry until its disposal; the petitioner's own suit O.S. No.441/2018 stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.04.2023. HELD: until O.S. No.434/2018 is decided respondent No.4 cannot decide the khata entry, and the petitioner, having suppressed the suit and the notice dated 27.11.2019, was not entitled to relief. Petition dismissed, with liberty to seek reliefs after the suit concludes in her favour. Bench: R. Nataraj J.; decided 30.10.2025.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 984 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUSHILAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKA HOSAHALLI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANJANEYA A B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY: UNDER SECRETARY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DEVANAHALLI TALUK PANCHAYATH, DEVANAHALLI TOWN AND TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, BETTAKOTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BETTAKOTE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; RESPONDENT NO.1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 TO EFFECT THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING GRAMATANA NO.100/163 MEASURING EAST TO WEST-31.10 METERS, NORTH TO SOUTH - 27.40 METERS IN TOTALLY MEASURING 852-14 SQUARE METERS SITUATED AT DODDA HOSAHALLI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK IN VIEW OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q IN REF.NO. PÁ¤C/vÁ¥ÀAzÉÃ/215/2019-20 DATED 22.11.2019 OF THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to enter her name in the Panchayat records /khata register in respect of the property bearing Gramatana No.100/163 measuring East to West 31.10 Meters and North to South 27.40 Meters totally measuring 852.14 Square Meters situate at Dodda Hosahalli, Channarayapatna hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶31

The petitioner claims that her husband – Sri M. Narayanappa was the absolute owner of the property mentioned above. At a meeting dated 10.02.1963 convened by Bettakote Grama Panchayat (henceforth referred to as 'the Panchayat') of which respondent No.4 is Panchayat Development Officer, it had resolved to enter the name of the husband of the petitioner in the Panchayat records in respect of the aforementioned property. The husband of the petitioner died on 19.04.2016. The petitioner being the eldest member in

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the family filed an application to enter her name in the assessment register in respect of the aforesaid property. However, some residents of Chikkahosahalli, namely, Sri Chikka Muniyappa, Sri Dodda Muniyappa, Sri Dodda Krishnappa, Sri Muniraju and Sri Ashok had also filed an application for entering their names in respect of the property in question in the assessment register. On 19.06.2018, the respondent No.4 placed both the applications before the general meeting of the Panchayat. The elected body of the Panchayat decided that the property claimed by the petitioner was the property belonging to the joint family and therefore, directed the respondent No.4 to conduct a spot inspection. The petitioner claims that as per the spot inspection, the rival claimants claimed their right only in respect of the usufructs of the tamarind tree and the petitioner questioned the decision of the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 after verification of the claim of the petitioner as well as the rival claimants, directed the respondent No.4 to effect the khata in respect of the aforesaid property in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter applied for survey of the aforesaid property. The Taluk Surveyor prepared

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

a sketch and uploaded the documents for consideration by the respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.4 did not take steps to register the khata in the name of the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned property. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.4 had issued an endorsement dated 28.08.2019 directing her to submit documents within 3 days and an endorsement dated 31.08.2019 was issued by the respondent No.4 informing her that there are no khata details found in its registers in respect of khata No.100/163 of Doddahosahalli village. The respondent No.4 also issued a reply dated 16.09.2019 stating that the previous Panchayat Development officer had not made any entries in the khata registers. The respondent No.4 thereafter informed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 about not entering the name of the petitioner in the khata which was also communicated to the petitioner by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide their letter/s dated 12.11.2019 and 22.11.2019 respectively. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking for the aforementioned directions.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when once the Panchayat had taken a decision at a meeting in

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the year 1963 when the khata of the property in question was made out in the name of the husband of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 could not have entertained any further doubt and must have entered the name of the petitioner’s husband initially and later, the name of the petitioner in the property register/khata.

¶44

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.4 who has contended that after verifying the books and records, it was found that the Panchayat had not passed any resolution dated 10.02.1963 as claimed by the petitioner. He claimed that based on an application filed by the petitioner on 03.09.2019, a notice dated 27.11.2019 was issued to the petitioner to produce all the documents. Thereafter, when the officials of the Bettakote Grama Panchayat went to the property for a spot inspection, they found that the petitioner was not in possession of the property bearing khata No.100/163, but a person named Mr. Ashok and his family members were in possession. Likewise, one Mr.Doddamuniyappa and Others had filed a suit for declaration in O.S. No.434/2018, which is pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli. In the said suit, the petitioner herein is

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

arrayed as defendant No.1 and respondent No.4 herein is arrayed as defendant No.2. He contends that a perusal of the plaint filed in the aforesaid suit discloses that there is a dispute regarding the title of the petitioner to the suit schedule property. In view of the above, the respondent No.4 had issued an endorsement dated 29.11.2019 intimating the petitioner that it would take action only after the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.434/2018 by the Civil Court. It is contended that though this endorsement was served on the petitioner, deliberately, the petitioner has not produced the said endorsement in this petition. Thus respondent No.4/Panchayat Development Officer claims that unless the said civil suit is decided, he is not in a position to enter the name of the petitioner in the Panchayat records as a person liable to pay tax.

¶49

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed statement of objections reiterating the above contentions. They have referred to the suit in O.S. No.441/2018 filed by the petitioner herein against Mr. Arun Kumar and respondent No.4 herein/Panchayat Development Officer and one Smt. Jayalakshmi before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

JMFC., Devanahalli. The said suit was dismissed for nonprosecution by the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 18.04.2023.

¶54

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 reiterated the contentions urged in the statement of objections and submitted that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material facts before this Court and therefore, no indulgence can be shown to her.

¶55

The petitioner has though claimed that the property in question belongs to her husband and that the Panchayat had resolved in the year 1963 to enter her husband’s name in respect of the property in question in the Municipal records, it is not in dispute that a suit in O.S. No.434/2018 is filed for declaration of title by a person named Mr. Doddamuniyappa and others against the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 and the same is pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli. Therefore, unless the said suit is decided, the respondent No.4 cannot take any decision to enter the name of the petitioner in the Panchayat records. The petitioner has suppressed filing of the

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:43642 WP No. 984 of 2021

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

suit in O.S. No.434/2018 as well as the letter of intimation/notice issued by the respondent No.4 dated 27.11.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs at the hands of this Court.

¶60

Hence, the petition is dismissed. It is, however, open for the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs from the hands of the respondent No.4 once the suit in O.S No.434/2018 which is pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, is decided in her favour.

¶61

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶62

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Communication by respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide letters dated 12.11.2019 and 22.11.2019 that the petitioner's name was not entered in the khata records for khata No.100/163, Doddahosahalli village; the writ prayer rests on the report submitted by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-Q (ref. No. dated 22.11.2019).¶38
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (Bangalore Rural District Zilla Panchayath / Devanahalli Taluk Panchayath) · 22.11.2019
Prior proceeding
Claimed meeting dated 10.02.1963 of Bettakote Grama Panchayat at which, according to the petitioner, it was resolved to enter her husband's name in the Panchayat records for the property.¶31
Prior proceeding
Death of the petitioner's husband Sri M. Narayanappa on 19.04.2016; the petitioner, being the eldest member of the family, applied for entry of her name in the assessment register.¶31
Prior proceeding
Rival residents (Chikka Muniyappa, Dodda Muniyappa, Dodda Krishnappa, Muniraju and Ashok) also applied for entry of their names; on 19.06.2018 both applications were placed before the Panchayat general meeting, which treated the property as joint-family property and directed a spot inspection.¶35
Prior proceeding
After verification of the petitioner's claim and the rival claims, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to effect the khata for the property in the petitioner's name.¶35
Prior proceeding
The petitioner applied for survey; the Taluk Surveyor prepared a sketch and uploaded the documents for respondent No.4's consideration, but respondent No.4 took no steps to register the khata in her name.¶38
Prior proceeding
Endorsement dated 28.08.2019 issued by respondent No.4 directing the petitioner to submit documents within 3 days.¶38
Prior proceeding
Endorsement dated 31.08.2019 issued by respondent No.4 informing the petitioner that no khata details were found in its registers for khata No.100/163 of Doddahosahalli village.¶38
Prior proceeding
Reply dated 16.09.2019 issued by respondent No.4 stating that the previous Panchayat Development Officer had made no entries in the khata registers.¶38
Prior proceeding
Application filed by the petitioner on 03.09.2019 pursuant to which respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 27.11.2019 calling upon her to produce all documents.¶44
Prior proceeding
Spot inspection by Bettakote Grama Panchayat officials found the petitioner not in possession of khata No.100/163; a person named Mr. Ashok and his family members were in possession.¶44
Prior proceeding
Declaration suit O.S. No.434/2018 filed by Doddamuniyappa and Others against the petitioner (arrayed as defendant No.1) and respondent No.4 (defendant No.2), pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli; the plaint discloses a dispute regarding the petitioner's title.¶44
Prior proceeding
Endorsement dated 29.11.2019 issued by respondent No.4 intimating the petitioner that action would be taken only after disposal of O.S. No.434/2018 by the Civil Court; the petitioner did not produce this endorsement in the writ petition.¶48
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S. No.441/2018 filed by the petitioner herself against Mr. Arun Kumar, respondent No.4/Panchayat Development Officer and Smt. Jayalakshmi before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli; dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 18.04.2023.¶53

Smt. Sushilamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushilamma 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 Mangala Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Sri Balaji Electronics Vs the Arsikere Town

Dr Nalini Parameshwara Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri B.J. Jagadish Vs the Chief Secretary

Mrs P Kalavathi Vs the State Election Commission

Smt M Nalinakshi Vs Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike