[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Khadarkhan S/O Hussainsab Patil vs The Principal Secretary on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961
WP No. 100673 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 100673 OF 2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. KHADARKHAN S/O HUSSAINSAB PATIL,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. NAZEERSAB S/O HUSSAINSAB PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: LINE MAN,
3. BABAJAN S/O HUSSAINSAB PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. MAHAMMEDSAB S/O HUSSAINSAB PATIL,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
ALL ARE R/O: GARAG,
TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
by
PREMCHANDRA RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
MR
Location: HIGH PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU.
2. THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DHARWAD,
R/BY ITS PRESIDENT,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
DHARWAD.
3. THE TALUKA PANCHAYAT DHARWAD,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, DHARWAD.
4. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, GARAG
R/BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961
WP No. 100673 of 2018
HC-KAR
5. BHEEMAWWA W/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GARAG, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
6. PARAWWA D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
7. DROUPADI D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
8. PEERAWWA D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
9. MAADEVI D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
10. SAHADEVI D/O NINGAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
11. MANJAWWA W/O MADIWALAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
12. MAJOJ S/O MADIWALAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
13. MANJULA D/O MADIWALAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
14. AMRUTA S/O. MADIWALAPPA KALASGAR,
AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: GARAG, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
(RESPONDENT NO.12 TO 14 ARE MINORS
R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.7)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MAHESH.N.MUNDINAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRAKASH.S.UDIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R7, R8, R10 TO R14)
NOTICE TO R2 TO R4, R6, R9 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961
WP No. 100673 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Anil Kale., counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.N.Hatti.,
HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Mahesh N.Mundinamani.,
counsel on behalf of Sri.Prakash S.Udikeri., for respondents 5, 7,
8, 10 to 14 have appeared in person.
2. The short facts are these:
The petitioners are the owners of the property bearing VPC
No.80 situated at Kumbar Oni, Gagar Village, Dharwad Taluk
measuring 110 feet length towards east-west and 50 feet width
towards north-south and accordingly their names were entered
in the property records on 05.05.2006. As there was interference
by one Sri.Ningappa Peerappa Kalasgar, the petitioners were
constrained to take shelter before the Civil Court and filed a suit
for injunction in O.S.No.302/2006. The Trial Court vide judgment
and decree dated:12.03.2008 dismissed the suit. The petitioners
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated:05.01.2012 allowed the
appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961
HC-KAR
and the plaint was returned holding that the Court has no
jurisdiction to decide the matter.
As things stood thus, taking note of the order of the
Appellate Court, the Gram Panchayat passed the resolution and
entered the name of Ningapppa Peerappa Kalasgar on
21.10.2008. Aggrieved by the said resolution, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the Taluk Panchayat, Dharwad. The
President Taluk Panchayat vide order dated:14.01.2016
dismissed the same. As against that said order, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the President of Zilla Panchayat. The
President of Zilla Panchayat vide order dated 10.11.2017, upheld
the order of the Taluk Panchayat. Under these circumstances,
the petition is filed on several grounds as set out in the
memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions.
Counsel for respondents 5, 7, 8, 10 to 14 in presenting his
arguments vehemently contends that the suit filed by the
petitioners has been dismissed and the Appellate Court has not
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961
HC-KAR
disposed of the appeal on the merits of the case. He argued by
saying that Ningappa Peerappa Kalasgar is the absolute owner of
the property and he has sale deed in his favor. He justified the
action on the part of the Panchayat to enter the name of
Ningappa Peerappa Kalasgar. Counsel therefore, submits that the
petition is devoid of merits and it is liable be dismissed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
5. The issue falls within the narrow compass and relates
to the resolution and orders passed by the Panchayat. The facts
are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. It is noted
that the petitioners filed a suit. However, the same was
dismissed and on an appeal the plaint was rejected. Based upon
the order passed by the Appellate Court, the Panchayat could not
have entered the name; the reasons for this are apparent on the
face of the record. The rejection of the plaint does not give the
right for the Panchayat to enter the name of Ningappa Peerappa
Kalasgar in the property extracts. Hence, this Court deems it
proper to quash the resolution and the orders vide Annexures -
E, H and J.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3961
HC-KAR
6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The resolution dated
21.10.2008 passed by the PDO Gram Panchayat, Garag vide
Annexure - E; the order dated:14.01.2016 passed by the Taluk
Panchayat, Dharwad vide Annexure-H and order dated
10.11.2017 passed by the Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad vide
Annexure - J are quashed.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
