Dismissed

Shri.Subhash v. Smt.Kalavati

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026WP/108474/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, purchasers of property from a vendor already saddled with a final adverse decree, challenged an earlier writ order remitting a Panchayat mutation dispute for fresh consideration, alleging non-joinder and suppression. The court held the dispute was civil and no title was adjudicated; the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to urge permissible contentions before the competent Civil Court and the Panchayat Authority pursuant to remand.

Shri.Subhash Vs Smt.Kalavati — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:33 WP No. 108474 of 2016

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 108474 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. SUBHASH S/O. LAXMAN BIRADI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.206/B, RAJAPUT GALLI, YAMAKANMARDI-591245, TALUKA: HUKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶8

SMT. KASHAVVA W/O. SUBHASH BIRADI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.206/B, RAJAPUT GALLI, YAMAKANMARDI-591245,

¶9

TALUKA: HUKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SMT. SUNANDA P.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

MANJANNA E

¶13

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.09 10:48:49 +0530

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. KALAVATI W/O. UDAYSINGH RAJAPUT, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: YAMAKANMARDI-591245, TALUKA: HUKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶16

KUMARI. PADMAVATI D/O. UDAYSINGH RAJAPUT, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: YAMAKANMARDI-591245, TALUKA: HUKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC-D:33 WP No. 108474 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KUMARI. POORNIMA D/O. UDAYSINGH RAJAPUT, SINCE DECEASED RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶21

SHRI. MOHAMMADRAFIQ S/O. GUDUSAB JAKATI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YAMAKANMARDI-591245, TALUKA: HUKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. KALAVATI U.RAJAPUT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; KUMARI. PADMAVATI U.RAJAPUT, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 01.07.2024)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE FINAL ORDER DATED 10.01.2014 IN WP 15105/2007 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC-D:33 WP No. 108474 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have called in question the order dated 10.01.2014 passed in W.P.No.15105/2007, whereby the proceedings in Appeal No.1/2005-06 was remitted to the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Hukeri for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶32

2.Brief facts:

¶33

2(i). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted

¶34

O.S.No.261/1997 (earlier O.S.No.112/1994) against Mohammadrafiq Jakati (respondent No.3) seeking declaration and injunction. The said suit was decreed on 27.01.2000.

¶35

2(ii). The appeal filed by respondent No.3 in R.A.No.5/2002 was dismissed as barred by limitation, and the revision CRP.No.1393/2004 was also dismissed by this Court, thereby giving finality to the decree.

¶36

2(iii).Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thereafter initiated

¶37

EP.No.85/2008. To a certain extent, coercive orders passed

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC-D:33 WP No. 108474 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

therein were challenged by the present petitioners and were set aside by this Court in W.P.No.84698-84700/2013, holding that the execution could not be proceeded against persons who are not parties to the decree.

¶42

2(iv).Independently, the dispute relating to mutation entries culminated in W.P.No.15105/2007, resulting in the impugned remand order dated 10.01.2014.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Though the respondents have been duly served with the notice, they have chosen to remain absent.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the property bearing VPC.No.206/B, Yamakanmardi, Hukeri Taluk, Belagavi District, under a registered sale deed dated 16.11.2006 and they are in possession. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are not impleaded in W.P.No.15105/2007 despite being necessary parties, that the material facts were suppressed by respondent Nos.1

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC-D:33 WP No. 108474 of 2016

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

and 2 and the continuation of the proceedings before the Panchayat Authority, pursuant to the impugned order would prejudice their rights.

¶49

This Court has considered the submissions made

¶50

and perused the material on record.

¶51

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶52

“Whether the impugned order dated

¶53

10.01.2014 passed in W.P.1505/2007 warrants interference?”

¶54

The decree in O.S.No.261/1997, the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Vendor Mohammadrafiq Jakati (respondent No.3), the revision and the subsequent execution proceedings unmistakably demonstrate that the dispute between the parties is predominantly civil in nature. The order passed in W.P.Nos.84698-84700/2013, preferred by the petitioners only protected the petitioners from the execution of a decree to which they were not parties and

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC-D:33 WP No. 108474 of 2016

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

did not confer or declare a title in their favour. The impugned order in W.P.No.15105/2007 is remitting the mutation dispute for fresh consideration and does not adjudicate inter-se rights of the parties.

¶59

Though the petitioners claim, purchase of the subject property under registered sale deed dated 16.11.2006 executed by Mohammadrafiq Jakati (respondent No.3), it is not in dispute that the said vendor had already suffered an adverse decree in O.S.No.261/1997, which has attained finality upon dismissal of the appeal and revision proceedings in CRP.No.1393/2004. Any conveyance made thereafter would not confer a superior or an independent right upon the petitioners. W.P.No.15105/2007 filed in the year 2007 and disposed of on 10.01.2014, arose out of the proceedings relating to the mutation before the Panchayat Authority and did not involve adjudication of title.

¶60

In the absence of any subsisting or legally recognized rights in favour of the petitioners traceable to

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC-D:33 WP No. 108474 of 2016

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

their vendor, the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners ought to have been impleaded as necessary parties in the said petition is untenable. Accordingly, the plea of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground of non-impleaded is not acceptable. There is no jurisdictional error or illegality demonstrated by the petitioners in the impugned remand order.

¶65

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to urge the permissible contentions before the competent Civil Court and before the Panchayat Authority pursuant to the remand.

¶66

No opinion is expressed on the merits of the rival claim and if any observed, it is only for the limited purpose of consideration of this writ petition.

¶67

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶68

AT/Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Shri.Subhash v. Smt.Kalavati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Subhash v. Smt.Kalavati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Pallavi W/O Manjunatha Hulihonda Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Smt Shanta Surendra Goudar Vs State of Karnataka

Basappa Virupakshappa Mallapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kolachalam Vishwa Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Guddappa Vs the President

Mr. Kommineni Rajesh Roshan Vs the Air Officer Commanding