Karnataka High Court
Venkatamma vs State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
W.A. No.609/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.609/2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
VENKATAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT SADAPANAHALLI VILLAGE
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
Digitally signed by BANGALORE RURAL-562129.
ARSHIFA BAHAR
KHANAM
Location: High ...APPELLANT
Court Of
Karnataka (BY SRI. GURUVA REDDY N, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
CHAPPARADAKALLU
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
W.A. No.609/2023
HC-KAR
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH, HOSAKOTE TALUK
HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GIDDAPPANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
5. THE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR
SCHEDULED CASTES, III FLOOR
D WING KENDRIYA SADAN
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.
6. S.M. JAYARAMAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT SADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
SULEBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADV., FOR R3 & R4
SRI. TIMMANNA BHAT, CGC FOR R5
SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADV., FOR R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
10.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. No.32981/2013 (LB-RES) BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION IN W.P. No.32981/2013 & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 19.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
W.A. No.609/2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated
10.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.32981/2013 (LB-RES).
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are
that the respondent No.6 filed a writ petition challenging
the letter dated 04.07.2013 of the respondent No.3, order
dated 10.07.2013 in M.R.No.3/2013-14 by the respondent
No.4 and the assessment register on the ground that the
name of the respondent No.6 in the revenue records was
cancelled based on the communication dated 25.06.2013
issued by the respondent No.5, without providing him an
opportunity of hearing. The learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders and
observed that it is open for the parties to approach the
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
HC-KAR
Civil Court to establish their right over the property in
question. Being aggrieved, the appellant who was the
respondent No.6 in the writ proceedings has filed this
appeal.
3. Sri.Guruva Reddy N., learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that the appellant was not
arrayed as a party in the writ proceedings but was later
impleaded. It is submitted that the brother-in-law of the
appellant i.e. Sri.Ramanjini filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.37304/2013 seeking to quash the endorsement
dated 20.07.2013 issued by the Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Panchayat, who declined to effect the khata on the
ground that both the family of the appellant and the writ
petitioner-S.M.Jayaramappa were claiming khata in
respect of the same property and the dispute is pending in
R.A.No.110/2012. This Court disposed of the writ petition
directing the Authorities to transfer the khata in the name
of Sri.Narayanaswamy. It is further submitted that the
learned Single Judge has failed to consider the effect of
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
HC-KAR
the order dated 17.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.37304/2013
and in view of the said order, the name of the appellant is
required to be continued in the revenue records. Hence,
he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Smt.Pramodhini Kishan, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1
and 2, Sri.M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.3 and 4, Sri.Timmanna Bhat, learned
Central Government counsel for the respondent No.5 and
Sri.Vijaya Krishna Bhat M, learned counsel for the
respondent No.6 support the impugned order and submit
that the learned Single Judge has only set aside the order
of cancellation of khata standing in the name of the
respondent No.6 but has observed that it is open for the
parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their right
over the property in question. Hence, they seek to
dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
HC-KAR
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6, learned
Central Government counsel for the respondent No.5 and
perused the material available on record. We have given
our anxious consideration to the submissions made on
both sides.
6. The respondent No.6 filed a writ petition
contending that the property bearing Khaneshumari
No.14, khata No.137 measuring East to West 9 yards and
North to South 16 yards situated at Yethinavadeyarapura
Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural
District, was purchased by Munishamappa, the father of
the respondent No.6 under a registered sale deed dated
10.09.1971 and from the date of purchase, the father of
the respondent No.6 and their family were in physical
possession and enjoyment of the property. It is averred
that after the death of Munishamappa, there was a family
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
HC-KAR
arrangement on 11.06.1993 and the property was allotted
to the share of the respondent No.6 and he is in
possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is
further averred that the name of the respondent No.6 was
not entered in the Gram Panchayat records and they have
issued an endorsement on 03.01.2000 on the ground that
there is a dispute and thereafter, the khata was effected in
his name and taxes were collected. It is also averred that
the appellant's family attempted to interfere with the
physical possession of the respondent No.6 who filed a suit
which came to be decreed on 04.09.2012 and the
defendants in the said suit preferred an appeal in
R.A.No.110/2012 which is pending adjudication. It is
contended that during the pendency of the civil
proceedings, the appellant approached the respondent
No.5 to enter his name in the revenue records and based
on such a representation, the respondent No.5 sent a
communication dated 25.06.2013 to the respondent No.2
requesting to take immediate steps to rectify and issue the
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
HC-KAR
khata in the name of the appellant. Based on such a
communication, the respondent No.3 issued a
memorandum dated 04.07.2013 directing the respondent
No.4 to cancel the khata standing in the name of the
respondent No.6 and enter the name of the appellant.
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the name of the
respondent No.6 has been removed and appellant's name
has been entered. It is not in dispute that the said
exercise carried out by the respondent Nos.5 and 3 was
without jurisdiction. Admittedly, the removal of the name
of the respondent No.6 from the revenue records and
inclusion of the name of the appellant is without providing
any opportunity to the respondent No.6. The learned
Single Judge, taking note of the same has recorded a clear
finding that the action of the respondent-authorities in
recommending deletion of the name of the respondent
No.6 from the revenue records and in entering the name
of the appellant is without authority of law and in violation
of the principles of natural justice. We do not find any
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
HC-KAR
error in the said finding. Insofar as the contention with
regard to the order in W.P.No.37304/2013 passed by this
Court, the said aspect is also considered by the learned
Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the impugned order and
the orders under challenge were set aside. The learned
Single Judge has clearly recorded a finding that the parties
are required to adjudicate before a competent Civil Court
with regard to their right and title over the property in
question. In view of the said finding, we are of the view
that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant. It is
needless to observe that the continuation of the name of
the respondent No.6 in the revenue records itself would
not confer any title over the property and the revenue
entries should be understood only for the fiscal purpose.
The observations made by this Court or by the learned
Single Judge would not come in the way of the parties
adjudicating their right before the Civil Court. In view of
the same, we do not find any good ground to set aside the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48529-DB
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and the
same is rejected. All the contentions of the parties on
merits are left open. Consequently, the pending
interlocutory application stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
