Sri M L Anand Kumar Vs Smt Parkodi J @ Parkodi J

SMT PARKODI J @ PARKODI J W/O P JAYARAM AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT VIJAYANAGAR BANGARPET KOLAR DISTRICT REP BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI P JAYARAM S/O PERIYANNA GOUNDER R/AT VIJAYANAGAR, BANGARPET TOWN KOLAR-562160

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:19783-DB WA No. 1984 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶23

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BANGARPETE KOLAR DISTRICT-562160

¶24

THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BANGARPET KOLAR DISTRICT-562160

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAGYA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP No. 7869/2025, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.10.2025, AND PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS, ALLOWING THE SAID WRIT APPEAL, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:19783-DB WA No. 1984 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶34

The present intra Court appeal has been filed under

¶35

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7869/2025 (LB-RES) preferred by respondent No.1 herein.

¶36

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶37

Petitioner filed the writ of petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Bangarpete, Kolar District, to issue an E-Khatha, in respect of the site bearing Municipal Khata No.29-504-130 K No.3051 formed in Survey No. 33/2A, 33/B and 41/6B situated as Desihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli Bangarpete Taluk, Kolar District, possessing the boundaries East to West 30 feet and North to South 180 feet, to consider her

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19783-DB WA No. 1984 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

representation dated 10.09.2024 submitted on

¶41

11.09.2024.

¶42

According to the petitioner, she had purchased the

¶43

aforesaid site in terms of the sale deed dated 31.01.2000. On the basis of the said sale deed, her name was entered in the Municipal Records maintained by the Town Municipal Council. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that property tax was collected from her, till filing of the writ petition. She had submitted an application on 10.09.2024 seeking issuance of E-khatha in respect of the said property. However, no action was taken.

¶44

Petitioner had also filed a suit in OS No.308/2001 for

¶45

permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the her possession over the property in question and the said suit came to be decreed in her favour. The defendant filed R.A.No.205/2002, which was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed RSA No.1340/2000. During the pendency of the regular

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:19783-DB WA No. 1984 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

second appeal, the sole defendant died and therefore, the appeal was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit. In the event, her possession was interfered with.

¶50

The appellants herein had filed objection to the application filed by the petitioner dated 10.09.2024 seeking issuance of E-khatha in respect of the scheduled property bearing Municipal Khatha No.29-504-130 K No.3051 situated at Desihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangarapete Taluk, Kolar District. The Municipal Authority also took an objection that as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.308/2001 filed by the petitioner, R.A.No.205/2002 came to be allowed and RSA.No.1340/2009 was dismissed as withdrawn. Unless the petitioner secured an appropriate declaration from the competent Civil Court establishing her ownership over the schedule property, the question of issuing E-Khatha in her favour would not arise.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:19783-DB WA No. 1984 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

The learned Single Judge however, has held that as the petitioner's name was not struck off from the Municipal Records and issuance of an E-khatha in her favour would not alter or affect the right, title or interest in the property in any manner, and mere issuance of E-Khatha would not obliterate the right, title or interests of other persons over the property, directed for issuance of E-Khatha.

¶55

The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the petitioner had lost the case in the regular first appeal and her regular second appeal was withdrawn, and she has not filed any fresh suit, therefore, E-Khatha could not have been issued. He further has submitted that he has filed objection for issuing E-Khata in her name and that has not been considered until now.

¶56

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶57

If the petitioner has filed an application, the same should be considered by the Municipal Authority in

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19783-DB WA No. 1984 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

accordance with the law. Any observation made by the learned Single Judge would not come on the way of considering the application of the appellants for deleting the name of the petitioner from the Municipal Record.

¶61

We therefore, permit the appellants to file fresh application if already not filed for mutating their names and deleting the name of the petitioner from the Municipal Records and cancelling the E-Khatha. The Municipal

¶62

Authority after hearing the parties i.e. the petitioner as well as the appellants herein will consider the application in accordance with the law without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge expeditiously.

¶63