Khadarkhan S/O Hussainsab Patil vs The Principal Secretary

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2213 Kant
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Khadarkhan S/O Hussainsab Patil vs The Principal Secretary on 12 March, 2026

                                                   -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961
                                                           WP No. 100673 of 2018


                    HC-KAR



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                          DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                         BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 100673 OF 2018 (LB-RES)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   KHADARKHAN S/O HUSSAINSAB PATIL,
                        AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

                   2.   NAZEERSAB S/O HUSSAINSAB PATIL,
                        AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: LINE MAN,

                   3.   BABAJAN S/O HUSSAINSAB PATIL,
                        AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

                   4.   MAHAMMEDSAB S/O HUSSAINSAB PATIL,
                        AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

                        ALL ARE R/O: GARAG,
                        TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
                                                                     ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed
                   1.    THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
by
PREMCHANDRA              RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
MR
Location: HIGH           PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                BENGALURU.

                   2.    THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DHARWAD,
                         R/BY ITS PRESIDENT,
                         ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
                         DHARWAD.

                   3.    THE TALUKA PANCHAYAT DHARWAD,
                         R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                         TALUKA PANCHAYAT, DHARWAD.

                   4.    THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, GARAG
                         R/BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961
                                    WP No. 100673 of 2018


 HC-KAR




5.   BHEEMAWWA W/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
     AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O: GARAG, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.

6.   PARAWWA D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
     AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

7.   DROUPADI D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
     AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

8.   PEERAWWA D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
     AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

9.   MAADEVI D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
     AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

10. SAHADEVI D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
    AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

11. MANJAWWA W/O MADIWALAPPA KALASGAR,
    AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

12. MAJOJ S/O MADIWALAPPA KALASGAR,
    AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

13. MANJULA D/O MADIWALAPPA KALASGAR,
    AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

14. AMRUTA S/O. MADIWALAPPA KALASGAR,
    AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
    R/O: GARAG, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.

     (RESPONDENT NO.12 TO 14 ARE MINORS
     R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
     MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.7)
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI. MAHESH.N.MUNDINAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI. PRAKASH.S.UDIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R7, R8, R10 TO R14)
 NOTICE TO R2 TO R4, R6, R9 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
                                -3-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961
                                         WP No. 100673 of 2018


HC-KAR




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

                          ORAL ORDER

Sri.Anil Kale., counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.N.Hatti., HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Mahesh N.Mundinamani., counsel on behalf of Sri.Prakash S.Udikeri., for respondents 5, 7, 8, 10 to 14 have appeared in person.

2. The short facts are these:

The petitioners are the owners of the property bearing VPC No.80 situated at Kumbar Oni, Gagar Village, Dharwad Taluk measuring 110 feet length towards east-west and 50 feet width towards north-south and accordingly their names were entered in the property records on 05.05.2006. As there was interference by one Sri.Ningappa Peerappa Kalasgar, the petitioners were constrained to take shelter before the Civil Court and filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.302/2006. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated:12.03.2008 dismissed the suit. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated:05.01.2012 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961 WP No. 100673 of 2018 HC-KAR and the plaint was returned holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter.
As things stood thus, taking note of the order of the Appellate Court, the Gram Panchayat passed the resolution and entered the name of Ningapppa Peerappa Kalasgar on 21.10.2008. Aggrieved by the said resolution, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Taluk Panchayat, Dharwad. The President Taluk Panchayat vide order dated:14.01.2016 dismissed the same. As against that said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the President of Zilla Panchayat. The President of Zilla Panchayat vide order dated 10.11.2017, upheld the order of the Taluk Panchayat. Under these circumstances, the petition is filed on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

Counsel for respondents 5, 7, 8, 10 to 14 in presenting his arguments vehemently contends that the suit filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the Appellate Court has not -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961 WP No. 100673 of 2018 HC-KAR disposed of the appeal on the merits of the case. He argued by saying that Ningappa Peerappa Kalasgar is the absolute owner of the property and he has sale deed in his favor. He justified the action on the part of the Panchayat to enter the name of Ningappa Peerappa Kalasgar. Counsel therefore, submits that the petition is devoid of merits and it is liable be dismissed.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

5. The issue falls within the narrow compass and relates to the resolution and orders passed by the Panchayat. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. It is noted that the petitioners filed a suit. However, the same was dismissed and on an appeal the plaint was rejected. Based upon the order passed by the Appellate Court, the Panchayat could not have entered the name; the reasons for this are apparent on the face of the record. The rejection of the plaint does not give the right for the Panchayat to enter the name of Ningappa Peerappa Kalasgar in the property extracts. Hence, this Court deems it proper to quash the resolution and the orders vide Annexures - E, H and J.

-6-

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961 WP No. 100673 of 2018 HC-KAR

6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The resolution dated 21.10.2008 passed by the PDO Gram Panchayat, Garag vide Annexure - E; the order dated:14.01.2016 passed by the Taluk Panchayat, Dharwad vide Annexure-H and order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad vide Annexure - J are quashed.

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

Sd/-

(JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47