Karnataka High Court
Sayeda Ahmadi Sahebjadi W/O Sayed ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16308
WP No. 103942 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 103942 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SAYEDA AHMADI SAHEBJADI
W/O SAYED ALISHA,
AGE. 58 YEARS, MUSLIM, AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AEH-238, USMAN SHAH CAMP,
MUNIRABAD DAM, KOPPAL-583 233,
DIST. KOPPAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.27 12:54:40
+0530
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
2. D.C. OFFICE, HOSPETE ROAD, KOPPAL,
DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
3. ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX,
HOSAPET ROAD, KOPPAL-583 233.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHYAT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16308
WP No. 103942 of 2024
HC-KAR
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX,
HOSAPET ROAD, KOPPAL-583 233.
5. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HOSALLI VILLAGE,
BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 233.
6. SAYED HUSEN SHAH
S/O. LATE SAYYED USMAN SHAH,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NIL,
RESIDENT OF USMAN SHA CAMP,
MUNIRABAD DAM, KOPPAL-583 233.
7. SAYED KABEER SHAH
S/O. LATE SAYYED USMAN SHAH,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NIL,
RESIDENT OF USMAN SHA CAMP,
MUNIRABAD DAM, KOPPAL-583 233.
8. SAYED ASMA
W/O. SAYYED LATEEF SHAH,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NIL,
RESIDENT OF USMAN SHA CAMP,
MUNIRABAD DAM, KOPPAL-583 233.
9. SAYED NILOFER BIBI
W/O. SAYYED KHALANDAR SHAH,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NIL,
RESIDENT OF USMAN SHA CAMP,
MUNIRABAD DAM, KOPPAL-583 233.
10. MANZOOR AHAMAD S/O N.D. KOLHAR,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. HOSPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
SRI. A.P. MURARI, ADVOCATE FOR R10;
SRI. GOVINDAGOWDA D. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R9)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16308
WP No. 103942 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY
APPROPRIATE ORDER OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.5, AT SUBJECT NO.6 DATED 29-11-2023,
GRAMA PANCHYAT HOSALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-R5, DATED 29-11-
2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE
ORDER OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENTRY MADE PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5, AT SUBJECT NO.6
DATED 29-11-2023, GRAMA PANCHYAT HOSALLI, MUTATING
THE NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.6 TO 9 VIDE ANNEXURE-W TO
W3, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE
ORDER OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.5, TO ENTER THE
NAME OF PETITIONER IN THE PROPERTY REGISTER VIDE
REGISTERED GIFT DEED BEARING NO.KOL-1-101691-2009-10
DATED 13-07-2009 IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE
ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO RETAIN THE NAME OF PETITIONER
MUTATION NO.30/2009-10 DATED 22-08-2009 BY RESPONDENT
NO.5 GRAM PANCHAYAT IN THE PROPERTY REGISTER FOR
NO.794 IN THE NAME OF SYEDA AHMADA SAHEBZADI W/O.
SYED ALISHA AS PER REGISTERED GIFT DEED VIDE ANNEXURE-
A1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16308
WP No. 103942 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India assailing the resolution dated 29.11.2023
passed by respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat, Hosalli village,
Koppal district.
2. In terms of the said resolution, respondent No.5-Gram
Panchayat issued Form No.11-B in favour of respondents No.6 to
9. It appears that respondents No.6 to 9 have sold the property
to respondent No.10 under a registered Sale Deed.
3. The petitioner claims that the resolution is illegal, as the
Senior Civil Judge, Koppal, in O.S.No.2/2011, has already
declared the petitioner's husband as the absolute owner of the
property bearing Sy.No.184/B measuring 01 acre 30 guntas
(property registration No.794) of Hosalli village, Koppal district.
4. It is his further submission that the appeals against that
judgment and decree filed in R.A.Nos.34 and 36 of 2017 on the
file of District Court, Koppal, were dismissed, and the judgment
and decree of the Civil Court in O.S.No.2/2011 has attained
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16308
HC-KAR
finality. Thus, it is urged that the resolution of the Gram
Panchayat is contrary to the declaration of title granted by the
Civil Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 9
would submit that petitioner's husband is the brother of
respondents No.6 to 9. Respondents No.6 to 9, being the sisters
and brothers of petitioner's husband, filed a counter claim in the
aforementioned suit, and rights of counter claimants not yet
decided.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10 would
submit that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property under a
registered Sale Deed executed by respondents No.6 to 9, and
that his name should be entered in the property records
pursuant to that Sale Deed. It is his further submission that,
because of the interim order granted by this Court, the entry has
not yet made in his favour.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would
submit that the Gram Panchayat is justified in passing the
resolution.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16308
HC-KAR
8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the
Bar and perused the records.
9. The decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.2/2011
is not in dispute. Consequently, the appeals filed against that
decree in R.A.Nos.34 and 36 of 2017 have also been dismissed.
The Court has held that the petitioner's husband was the owner
of the suit schedule property. Petitioner's husband executed a
registered Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner on 13.07.2009.
This being the position, the Authority, i.e., respondent No.5,
could not have refused the petitioner's name being recorded in
the property records of the portion property covered under the
aforementioned decree to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas.
10. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the
counter claim of respondents is dismissed.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents jointly
submit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which she
should exhaust before approaching the Writ Court. The
contention that the petitioner has an alternative remedy is
indeed true. However, in deserving cases, the Court can
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16308
HC-KAR
entertain the writ petition despite an alternative remedy, as
there is no bar under the law to entertain writ petition despite
alternative remedy.
12. The Court is of the view that this is one such deserving
case, as respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat has ignored the
decree passed by the competent Civil Court and affirmed by the
Appellate Court. Since the resolution is made contrary to that
decree, the Court is of the view that, despite the availability of
an alternative remedy, this petition can be entertained to issue
necessary directions.
13. Under these circumstances, the following:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed.
b) The resolution dated 29.11.2023 passed by
respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat, Hosalli
village, Koppal district, is set aside.
c) Within 30 days the name of the petitioner is
to be entered in the concerned property
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16308
HC-KAR
records as declared in O.S.No.2/2011 on the
file of Senior Civil Judge, Koppal, by
respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat.
d) In case the exercise is not carried out within
30 days, respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat
shall pay cost of ₹25,000/- to the petitioner.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
PMP
CT:BCK
