Karnataka High Court
Sri B N Puneeth vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.18659 OF 2025 (LB - RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. PUNEETH
S/O B.L. NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NEAR SHRI SHANKARESHWARA TEMPLE
MUDIGERE ROAD, BELUR TLAUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SKANDA .R.K RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REVENUE SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D C OFFICE, HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573201.
3. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICPAL COUNCIL
MUNISICIPAL COUNCIL OFFICE
2
BELURU
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115.
4. SRI. B.L. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE B. LAKKEGOWDA
CARE OF SRI. BALAKRISHNA
GENERAL MERCHANT
RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR CIRCLE
MUDIGERE ROAD, BELURU
HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.
5. TERRIOTORY MANAGER
BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION
BEHIND FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
METAGHALLI, MYSORE-570 016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V.S.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
SRI. H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 PASSED IN MUNCI(2)
C.R.NYA.PRA/14/2024-25 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 UNDER
SECTION 322(1) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964
AT ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
3
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated
05.06.2025 passed in No.MUNCI(2) C.R.NYA.PRA/14/2024-25
by the respondent No.2, wherein respondent No.1 while
allowing the revision filed under Section 322(1) of the
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 has ordered to cancel the
katha standing in the name of the petitioner with respect to
the schedule property and consequently, respondent No.3 has
cancelled the katha standing in the name of petitioner. The
order impugned at Annexure-R is under challenge.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The subject matter of this petition is property bearing
Sy.No.84/2 totally measuring 2 acres 31 guntas. Petitioner
claims that an extent measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas is owned
by grandfather of the petitioner and an extent of 1 acre 15.08
guntas is the self-acquired property of his father, B.L.
Ningegowda. Petitioner is asserting absolute title on the basis
4
of registered gift deed executed by his father, while
respondent No.4 is asserting that the additional extent of 1
acre 15.08 guntas purchased in the name of petitioner's father
is also joint family ancestral property.
3. While entertaining the revision petition filed by
respondent No.4, respondent No.2 has arrived at a conclusion
that the petition property is joint family ancestral property.
Placing reliance on the compromise decree passed in
O.S.No.31/2013, respondent No.2 concluded that the petition
property was also the subject matter of the said decree.
Observing that specific shares had been allotted to various
family members under the compromise, respondent No.2
proceeded to cancel the katha in favour of the petitioner under
the impugned order.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned
order is liable to be set aside on two primary grounds. Firstly,
the revision petition filed by respondent No.4 was entertained
5
despite being grossly delayed and without an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay.
Secondly, by drawing attention to the order passed by this
Court in MFA.No.7249/2024, it is submitted that the
temporary injunction earlier granted in favour of respondent
No.4 was set aside by this Court vide order dated 05.11.2024.
It is further contended that the petitioner has derived title to
the property under a registered gift deed. Therefore,
respondent No.4, having already called into question the said
gift deed by instituting O.S.No.511/2023, could not have
simultaneously approached respondent No.2 by invoking the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka
Municipalities Act.
5. Referring to the conversion order, the sketch
furnished, the NOC issued by the Deputy Commissioner for the
construction of a petrol bunk, the approved layout plan, and
the communication issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited dated 23.05.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner has
6
clearly acted in excess of his jurisdiction. It is submitted that
cancellation of katha during the pendency of the civil suit filed
by respondent No.4 amounts to prejudging the validity of the
registered gift deed, which is under challenge in
O.S.No.511/2023. Therefore, it is contended that the Deputy
Commissioner could not have cancelled the katha unilaterally
and prematurely, particularly when title is sub judice before a
competent Civil Court.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.4, by placing reliance on the very same
documents, strongly relies on the compromise decree passed
in O.S.No.31/2013. He submits that the property measuring 1
acre 15.08 guntas purchased by the propositus and an
equivalent extent purchased by the petitioner's father both
form part of Sy.No.84/2 and are joint family ancestral
properties. It is contended that these extents were indeed the
subject matter of the earlier suit in O.S.No.31/2013 and,
under the terms of the compromise decree, specific shares
were allotted to the petitioner, respondent No.4, and other co-
7
parceners. Therefore, it is urged that the registered gift deed
in favour of the petitioner is a fraudulent document, which
seeks to alter the character of the joint family property. On
this premise, learned Senior Counsel submits that the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and the learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents
No.1 and 2. The Court has also carefully perused the records,
including the impugned orders and the judgments annexed to
the writ petition.
8. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it
appropriate to examine the contents of the compromise
decree recorded in O.S.No.31/2013. Clause (1) of the said
compromise decree reads as under:
"zÁªÁ C£ÀĸÀÄa D¹ÛUÀ¼À LlA £ÀA. 1 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 84/2, LlA
£ÀA. 2 ¸À.£ÀA. 85, LlA £ÀA§gï 09 ¸À.£ÀA. 85 «¹ÛÃtð PÀæªÀĪÁV 1
JPÀgÉ, 3-11 UÀÄAmÉ, 1-00 JPÀgÉ MlÄÖ 5-11 JPÀgÉ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ¯Á 30.14
8
UÀÄAmÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¨Á®PÀȵÀÚ, ©¯ÉèÃUËqÀ, ªÀÄAeÉÃUËqÀ, ¤AUÉÃUËqÀ, gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ,
zsÀªÉÄÃðUËqÀ ºÁUÀÆ UÉÆÃ¥Á®, EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀĪÁV
ºÀAaPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
9. On a plain reading of the extracted portion of the
compromise decree in O.S.No.31/2013, what clearly emerges
is that Item No.1, i.e., land bearing Sy.No.84/2 measuring 1
acre 15.08 guntas, was directed to be equally divided among
the family members. However, in respect of another extent of
land also measuring 1 acre 15.08 guntas in the very same
survey number Sy.No.84/2, which is stated to have been
purchased by the petitioner's father, there is no express
reference in the compromise decree indicating whether this
portion too formed part of the suit schedule or was subject to
partition under the said compromise. This creates a degree of
ambiguity regarding the inclusion of the property purchased
by the petitioner's father in the compromise settlement
recorded in O.S.No.31/2013.
10. This Court also finds it necessary to extract the
relief sought by the petitioner in O.S.No.511/2023, wherein
9
the validity of the gift deed is under challenge. The prayer
column of the plaint reads as follows:
"Wherefore for the foregoing reasons the plaintiffs
prays for the judgment and decree of
a) Declaration in their favour and against the
defendants, thereby declaring that the alleged Gift deed
11/2/2022 and change of katha in respect of the suit
schedule properties, is/are not binding upon the right,
shares of the plaintiffs as per the Compromise decree in
OS 31/2013, and
b) Permanent injunction, thereby restraining the
defendants and their men and agents etc., from
constructing any sort of structure or from interfering or
from encroaching the right, share and possession of the
plaintiffs or from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit
schedule properties or from obstructing or from causing
any nuisance or from doing any tortuous acts with the
joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties of the plaintiffs, and
b) Further prays for court costs and expenses and
also prays for such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may
deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case,
in the interest of equity and justice."
10
11. A plain reading of the extracted prayer in the plaint
filed in O.S.No.511/2023 clearly reveals that respondent No.4
has directly challenged the validity of the gift deed dated
11.02.2022. The relief sought includes a declaration that the
said gift deed is not binding on respondent No.4's share as per
the terms of the compromise decree recorded in
O.S.No.31/2013. Additionally, respondent No.4 has also
sought consequential relief by way of a permanent injunction.
In light of this admitted factual position, the crucial question
that arises for consideration is whether respondent
No.2/Deputy Commissioner, despite being cognizant of the
pendency of the said civil litigation, could have ventured into
adjudicating the character of the property and the rights of the
parties therein, particularly in exercise of his revisional
jurisdiction under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka
Municipalities Act.
12. It is a well-settled principle of law, reiterated in
several decisions of this Court, that when katha is issued
11
pursuant to a registered document such as a sale deed, gift
deed, or partition deed and if the validity of such registered
document is subsequently called into question in a civil suit,
the revenue or municipal authorities must refrain from
undertaking any inquiry or adjudication touching upon title or
ownership. Their role is limited to maintaining revenue
records and municipal registers and not to decide upon civil
disputes involving complex issues of title, especially when
such issues are already sub judice before a competent Civil
Court. Therefore, the act of respondent No.2 in entertaining
the revision filed by respondent No.4 and proceeding to cancel
the katha on the assumption that the gift deed is fraudulent
amounts to a clear transgression of jurisdiction and is contrary
to the settled position of law.
13. Furthermore, Rule 6 of the Karnataka Municipal
(Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1967, clearly prescribes that a
revision under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act
must be filed within 30 days from the date of the impugned
order. In the instant case, the gift deed is dated 11.02.2022,
12
and the katha was issued in favour of the petitioner on
27.12.2023. The revision petition under Section 322 was
admittedly filed much beyond the stipulated period of 30 days.
It is an established principle of law that any delay in filing an
appeal or revision beyond the prescribed period must be
accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, supported by
sufficient cause.
14. In the present case, the records unequivocally
disclose that respondent No.4 has not filed any such
application seeking condonation of delay. Despite this
procedural lapse, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner has
entertained and adjudicated the belated revision on merits.
This conduct is in clear breach of settled legal principles and
renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. Even on the
ground of maintainability, the revision ought to have been
rejected in limine.
13
15. This Court has also taken note of the material
records placed by the petitioner, which further reinforce his
claim of independent title and possession. Significantly, the
survey number in dispute i.e Sy.No.84/2 has since been
renumbered as Sy.No.84/3, as evidenced by official revenue
records. The conversion order secured by the petitioner,
which demarcates the converted portion and situates the land
forming part of the compromise decree (Item No.1 in
O.S.No.31/2013) towards the eastern boundary, further
supports the petitioner's assertion that the gifted property is
distinct and not the subject matter of the said compromise.
Additional documents such as the katha certificate in the
petitioner's name, technical approval from the Town Planning
Authority, NOC dated 13.08.2024 issued by the Deputy
Commissioner for construction of a petrol bunk, approved
layout plan, and a letter issued by Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited dated 23.05.2025 addressed to the
Assistant Executive Engineer for issuance of completion and
14
occupancy certificates, along with photographs, collectively
establish that the petitioner is in lawful possession and has
acted upon the gift deed. These facts were also taken into
consideration by this Court while allowing the appeal in
MFA.No.7249/2024, wherein the temporary injunction granted
by the Trial Court was reversed.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the
cumulative effect of the legal and factual position, this Court is
of the considered view that the Deputy Commissioner has
grossly exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining a belated
revision and venturing into issues relating to title, which are
pending adjudication before the Civil Court in
O.S.No.511/2023. The impugned order not only suffers from
procedural irregularities but is also legally unsustainable as it
amounts to pre-judging the validity of a registered document,
which only a competent Civil Court can decide. The power
under Section 322 is a limited supervisory jurisdiction meant
for correction of patent errors in municipal records and not for
adjudication of civil disputes involving complicated questions
15
of title. The impugned action of respondent No.2 is therefore
arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed. It is
reiterated that once a katha is issued based on a registered
deed, such katha cannot be cancelled unless the said
document is declared invalid by a competent Court of law.
17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed;
(ii) The impugned order
dated 05.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2
under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964, vide Annexure-R, is
hereby quashed and set aside;
(iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to restore the
name of the petitioner in the katha records
pertaining to property bearing No.20-3-361,
situated in Ward No.16, Beluru Taluk, forming part
of Sy.No.84/3 of Beluru Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Hassan District;
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be
accomplished within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
