Karnataka High Court
Smt. Chikkathayamma vs Zilla Panchayath on 4 March, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8941
WP No. 26988 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 26988 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O LATE K THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/A BHARATHINAGARA,
C.A KERE HOBLI,
MADDURU TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571422.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. B V VIDYULATHA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ZILLA PANCHAYATH
Digitally MANDYA DISTRICT,
signed by
ANAND N MANDYA-571401
Location: BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. TALUK PANCHAYATH
MADDURU
BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
3. BHARATHINAGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
BHARATHINAGARA, C.A KERE HOBIL,
MADDURU TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571422
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8941
WP No. 26988 of 2023
BY ITS PANCHAYATH
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
4. DR K CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
NO. 47, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM,
MYSORE-570012.
5. K.M. PUTTASWAMY
S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 1473
MADDUR-MALAVALLI MAIN ROAD
BHARATHINAGARA
C.A. KERE HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT -571 422.
6. SAROJAMMA
W/O PUTTALINGEGOWDA
D/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT BOMMA DODDI VILLAGE
C.A. KERE HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT -571 422.
7. K.M. SRINIVASA
S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING OF NO. 312
KYATHAGATTA VILLAGE
C.A. KERE HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8941
WP No. 26988 of 2023
8. SUNANDAMMA
W/O DEVEGOWDA
D/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 255
KYATHAGHATTA VILLAGE
C.A. KERE HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422.
9. M. SUVARNAMMA
W/O T MARISWAMY
D/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT THORESETTAHALLI VILLAGE
ATHAGUR HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 476.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M S DEVARAJU.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. RAKESH B BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANTS R5 TO R9)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 03/11/2023 PASSED BY THE R2
EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN GRAMA PANCHAYATH APPEAL
NO. 38/2021-22 AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE PETITION.
b) DIRECTING THE R1 TO R3 NOT CHANGE, ALTER OR
MODIFY THE E-KHATA ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER IN E-PROPERTY NO.1521002031002001
100, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:8941
WP No. 26988 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the second
respondent's order dated 03.11.2023 [Annexure-G],
and the second respondent by this order has directed
change in the revenue entries for an extent
measuring 7 guntas in Sy.No.24/1G [Panchayat
katha No.1473] of Mellahalli Village, C. A. Kere Hobli,
Bharati Nagar Grama Panchayat, Maddur Taluk [the
Subject Property]. The second respondent's order for
change of revenue entry in favour of the fourth
respondent is in the light of the judgment and decree
dated 17.08.2023 in RA No.41/2009 on the file of the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya.
2. The dispute over the Subject Property is
amongst the petitioner, the fourth respondent and
the fifth respondent to tenth respondents, and the
dispute has not attained finality with the aforesaid
judgment and decree dated 17.08.2023 in RA
No.41/2009 with the petitioner having called in
NC: 2024:KHC:8941
question the same before this Court in the second
appeal in RSA No.1976/2023. It is further
undisputed that if the judgment and decree dated
17.08.2023 in RA No.41/2009, which is after
multiple remands, is not disturbed, it would enable
the fourth respondent to assert absolute ownership of
an extent of 7 guntas out of 12 ½ guntas in this
property and the fifth to tenth respondents to assert
independent title and possession to the other 5 ½
guntas in this property.
3. Sri B.J. Somayaji, the learned counsel for
the second the third respondents, submits that the
revenue entry, whether in the name of the petitioner
or the fourth respondent, would always be subject to
the outcome of the pending second appeal in RSA
No.1976/2023 and therefore, there may not be any
interference. As against these submissions, Smt. B.
V. Vidyulatha, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the Katha for this property stood in the
NC: 2024:KHC:8941
name of the petitioner's husband even as of the date
of the suit in the year 1998; that even after the
demise of the petitioner's husband in the year 2006,
the Katha was made in the name of the petitioner;
and that this change was also not challenged but
when the e-katha was issued in the name of the
petitioner, the fourth respondent has commenced the
proceedings challenging the same.
4. Both Sri Harsha Kumar Gowda, the
learned counsel for the fourth respondent, and Sri.
Rakesh B. Bhatt, the learned counsels for the
impleading respondents, dispute the same
contending that their respective clients are in
possession of the corresponding portions and that
they have been paying taxes for the respective
portions. They emphasize that until E-katha was
issued in the name of the petitioner, the Katha
continued in the name of the petitioner's husband
without any challenge.
NC: 2024:KHC:8941
5. The question whether the second
respondent's order dated 03.11.2023 [Annexure-G]
must prevail even during the pendency of the appeal
in RSA No.1976/2023 must be considered in the light
of the following, amongst others:
[a] the settled law that the revenue entries
must follow the adjudication of the
dispute over title and that generally,
there cannot be any change when such
adjudication is yet pending is settled
proposition,
[b] the undisputed fact that the second
respondent was seized of the appeal
during the pendency of the first appeal
in RA No.41/2009 but did not result in
any order during the pendency of such
appeal, and
[c] the interim orders granted by the Courts
either during the original proceedings or
in the appeal proceedings, whether on
remand or otherwise.
NC: 2024:KHC:8941
6. Crucially, there is nothing on record for
this Court to categorically opine that the impugned
order is after due notice to the petitioner or to the
others concerned. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the second respondent's
impugned order dated 03.11.2003 [Annexure-G]
cannot be sustained on this short ground and the
proceedings must be restored to the second
respondent to examine all aspects as aforementioned.
It would be needless to observe that any order
thereafter would be subject to the final outcome in
the second appeal in RSA No. 1976/2023 and it
cannot impact either title claimed, or possession
asserted. In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER
[i] The petition is allowed in part, and the second
respondent's impugned order dated 03.11.2003
[Annexure-G] is quashed and the proceedings
are restored to the second respondent's board
for re-consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC:8941
[ii] The petitioner and the private respondents
without further notice shall appear before the
second respondent on 26.03.2024.
The pending applications stand disposed of in the
light of this Order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SA
