Disposed¶37

Smt. Gowramma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2026WP/36312/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Change of khata; E-khata issuance; Grama Panchayath; Panchayath Development Officer; online application mandatory for khata change; offline khata application cannot be considered; representation dated 06.03.2025 Annexure-D; property No.158/B K Kodihalli Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District; Article 227 Constitution of India; writ of mandamus; consideration within 30 days; entitlement left open; petition disposed; Karnataka HC; Suraj Govindaraj J.; 2026.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued on the offline application/representation; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an online application for change of khata with necessary documents, which the respondents must consider within 30 days of filing; entitlement left undecided. ¶37

Smt. Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 is to be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2025 and consequently change the katha and issue E-khata for property bearing No.158/B, K Kodihalli Village, Somanahalli Grama Panchayath.

¶25

Court's answer

An application for change of khata is required to be filed in an online manner accompanied by necessary documents; an offline application cannot be directed to be considered by the respondents.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an online application for change of khata accompanied by necessary documents.

¶33

Key takeaways

If such an online application is filed, the respondents are directed to consider it within 30 days of such filing.ratio¶33
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner to the khata change / E-khata; that question is left open.obiter¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 36312 of 2025 (LB-RES), High Court of Karnataka (Suraj Govindaraj J.), decided 02.02.2026 - Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 (Panchayath Development Officer, Somanahalli Grama Panchayath) to consider her representation dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure-D) and to change the katha and issue E-khata for property bearing No.158/B, K Kodihalli Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. Held: an application for change of khata must be filed online accompanied by necessary documents, and an offline application cannot be directed to be considered. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an online application; respondents directed to consider such application within 30 days of filing. The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement. Petition disposed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:5845 WP No. 36312 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36312 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE K. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT K. KODIHALLI VILLAGE, SOMANAHALLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571429

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SOMANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571429

¶14

THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH SOMANAHALLI, REP BY SECRETARY, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571429

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIYAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:5845 WP No. 36312 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.03.2025 AT ANNEXURE-D, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2, TO CHANGE THE KATHA AND ISSUANCE OF E/KHATA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER CONCERNING THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.158/B SITUATED AT K KODIHALLI VILLAGE, UNDER THE LIMITS OF SOMANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 6/3/2025 at AnnexureD, and consequently directed to the respondent No.2, to change the katha and issuance of E/khata in favour of the petitioner concerning the property bearing No.158/B Situated at K Kodihalli Village, under the limits of Somanahalli Grama Panchayath, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶26

b) Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case , in the interest of justice and equity."

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:5845 WP No. 36312 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that an application having been made for change of khata by the petitioner in a offline mode, the same was not considered and as such, a representation had been submitted on 06.03.2025, which has also not been considered by the respondent No.2.

¶31

It being required that an application for change of khata is filed in online manner accompanied by necessary documents, an offline application cannot be directed to be considered by the respondents. As such, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i). Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an online application for change of khata accompanied by necessary documents. If such an application is filed, the respondents are directed to consider the said application within 30 days of such filing.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5845 WP No. 36312 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

(ii). It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner.

¶37

(iii). Accordingly, the petition stands disposed .

¶38

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶39

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Smt. Gowramma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gowramma v. 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

P Amjad Khan Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Sunil B Jain, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sharadamma. N. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Shailesh Kumar Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority (Gba)

Sri.Shaik Roshan Suhail Vs the Commissioner

Syed Jameel Ahamed Vs the Secretary