Smt. Shanthamma vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 818 Kant

                             1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                        BEFORE

         THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

         WRIT PETITION No.54620/2015 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:
1.     SMT.SHANTHAMMA
       W/O LATE SRI.T.V.CHIKKAVENKATESHAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
       R/AT 5TH CROSS, V.V. EXTENSION
       VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOSKOTE-562114.

2.     SRI.T.V.GOPINATH
       S/O LATE SRI.T.V.CHIKKAVENKATESHAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
       R/AT 5TH CROSS, V.V. EXTENSION
       VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOSKOTE-562114.

3.     SMT.T.V.MAMATHA
       W/O SRI.MANJUNATH
       D/O LATE SRI.T.V.CHIKKAVENKATESHAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
       R/AT 5TH CROSS, V.V. EXTENSION
       VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOSKOTE-562114.

4.     SRI.MADHUSUDAN
       S/O LATE SRI.T.V.CHIKKAVENKATESHAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
       R/AT 5TH CROSS, V.V. EXTENSION
       VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOSKOTE-562114.    ...PETITIONERS

            (BY SRI.SAMPATH BAPAT., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
       AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
       AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU-560001.
                             2


2.   THE KOLAR TALUK PANCHAYAT
     KOLAR, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

3.   THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
     GRAMA PANCHAYAT BELAMARANAHALLI
     KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101.

4.   MR.JAVEED HYDER
     S/O LATE ABDUL LATHEEF
     AGED 61 YEARS
     R/AT 2103, NOB HILL CARROLLTON
     TEXAS 75006 USA
     REP. BY HIS SPA
     MR.SHOAIB HYDER
     S/O JAMEEL AHMED
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
     R/AT 501, 8TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS
     SADANANDA NAGAR
     N.G.E.F. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-38

5.   SHRI.G.J.VIJAYKUMAR
     S/O LATE SHRI.G.JAYARAMA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
     R/AT MARUTHI NILAYA
     2/1, DOMLUR MAIN ROAD
     BENGALURU-560071.                  ...RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI.M.B.SAMPATH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1;
     SRI.M.NARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
          SRI.A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
         SMT.IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE FOR R5.)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-M DATED 12.12.2014 AND CONSEQUENT ORDERS
DATED 25.08.2015 REGISTERING THE KHATA OF THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.4
VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND THEREAFTER TRANSFERRING IT TO
THE RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AS VOID AND NON-
EST; AND ETC.,

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                3


                           ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of

certiorari to quash the memorandum bearing

No.vÁ.¥ÀA.PÉÆÃ:«¦¹.¹.Dgï/140/2014-15 dated 12.12.2014

(Annexure-M) and consequential order dated

25.08.2015 registering the katha of the schedule

property in the name of the fourth respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sampath

Bapat for petitioners, learned High Court Government

Pleader Sri.M.B.Santhosh Kumar for respondent No.1,

learned counsel Sri.M.Narayana Reddy for respondent

Nos.2 and 3, learned counsel Sri.A.Ravishankar for

respondent No.4 and learned counsel Smt.Irfana Nazeer

for respondent No.5. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. On perusal of the impugned memorandum

at Annexure-M dated 12.12.2014 indicates that third

respondent - Grama Panchayath based on the judgment

and decree dated 22.08.2012 in O.S.No.173/2008

entered the name of the fourth respondent in the katha

register in respect of the property No.118, Assessment

No.336/336 of Belamaranahalli Grama Panchayath of

Chakarasanahalli Village. Annexure-N is the extract of

katha register wherein the fourth respondent's name is

entered. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that against the judgment and decree dated

22.08.2012 in O.S.No.173/2008, the petitioners have

preferred R.F.A.No.1542/2012 and the same is pending.

It is his submission that when the appeal is pending,

the third respondent could not have entered the name

of the fourth respondent in the katha register relating to

the schedule property.

4. Per contra, learned counsel

Sri.A.Ravishankar for respondent No.4 would submit

that there is no interim order staying the operation of

the judgment and decree. As such, he submits that the

Panchayath is justified in entering the name of the

fourth respondent in the katha register relating to

schedule property. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the

writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition

papers, I am of the view that no ground is made out at

this stage to interfere with the impugned order of the

Grama Panchayath. Admittedly, the third respondent -

Grama Panchayath based on the judgment and decree

in O.S.No.173/2008 dated 13.08.2012 entered the

name of the fourth respondent in the katha register

relating to the schedule property. The petitioners have

filed appeal in R.S.A.No.1542/2012 against the said

judgment and decree. This Court has not stayed the

operation of the said judgment and decree. When the

third respondent has acted upon to change the name of

the kathedar in respect of the schedule property on the

basis of the judgment and decree no fault could be

found with the action of the third respondent.

6. However, it is to be observed that the parties

would be bound by the outcome of the pending

R.F.A.No.1542/2012. Depending on the outcome of the

appeal in R.F.A.No.1542/2012, it is open for the parties

to seek appropriate orders from the Panchayath.

With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

NC.