SHRI B S RAVINDRA BABU vs THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50493
WP No. 26391 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010582952026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 26391 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI B S RAVINDRA BABU
S/O. LATE B L SUBBANNA
R/AT NO.497, SAVAKAR STREET
CHANNAPATTANA TOWN, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUNIRAJ GOWDA V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MADDURU TALUK PANCHAYATH
MADDURU, MANDYA DISTRICT
THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BESAGARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
SHRI B R HARISH
S/O. LATE B L RAMASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2.
3.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50493
WP No. 26391 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010582952026
R/AT BESAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI
BESAGARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
SHRI B R VASU
S/O. LATE B L RAMASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT BESAGARAHALLI VILLAGE
KOPPA HOBALI
BESAGARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
MADDURU TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
4.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M S DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.2025
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN GRA.
PAN.NO.17/2024-25, A COPY OF WHICH IS
PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE WRIT PETITION AS
PER ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50493
WP No. 26391 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010582952026
ORAL ORDER
The question for consideration is should this
Court interfere with the first respondent ’s impugned
Order dated 29.08.2025 [Annexure – D]. The first
respondent, by this impugned order, has directed the
Grama Panchayat [ Besagarahalli Grama Panchayat ]
to verify the details of the legal heirs of
Smt. Jayamma and give the benefit of the revenue
entries in favour of the legal heirs. Mr. V. Muniraj
Gowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Mr. M. S. Devaraju, a learned standing counsel who
accepts notice for the first and the second
respondents, are heard for disposal of the petition
dispensing with notice to the third respondent.
2. The genesis for the dispute and the
subsequent proceedings can be stated thus.
[a] The petitioner's father [ Late Mr. B. L.
Subbanna ] and his two brothers [ Mr. B.
L. Ramashetty and Mr. B. L.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50493
WP No. 26391 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010582952026
Sathyanarayana ] have signed
Panchayat Parikath dated 12.12.1981,
and the petitioner asserts that Mr. B. L.
Ramashetty was allotted 9 guntas and
his 2 brothers were allotted 7.5 guntas
each as recorded in the Panchayat
Parikath .
[b] The land in Survey No. 221/2, coming
within the limits of the Village
Panchayath, Smt. Jayamma is extended
the benefit of revenue entries for 9
guntas but this is cancelled with the
benefit of the revenue entries being
given to the petitioner.
[c] Smt. Jayamma has called in question
this decision under Section 237 of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat
Raj Act, 1993 [for short, ‘ the Act ] and
she was also successful in such
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50493
WP No. 26391 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010582952026
proceedings with the concerned
cancelling the revenue entries in favour
of the petitioner vide Order dated
29.05.2017.
[d] The petitioner has filed writ petition in
W.P.No.37671/2017 calling in question
such order, and this Court by the Order
dated 18.06.2024 has quashed the
Order dated 29.05.2017 observing that
Smt. Jayamma [ Mr. B. L. Ramashetty’s
wife ] would be at liberty to file an
appeal with the Executive Officer of the
Taluk Panchayat as contemplated
under Section 269 of the Act.
[e] There are no details about the appeal
filed by the petitioner after this order,
but the private respondents [ the
children of Smt. Jayamma ] have
recommenced the proceedings under
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50493
WP No. 26391 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010582952026
Section 269 of the Act calling in
question the revenue entries in favour
of the petitioner.
3. This Court can only infer from the afore
that, notwithstanding the orders of this Court,
Smt. Jayamma has continued to have the advantage
of the revenue entries and that has prompted the
private respondents to invoke the jurisdiction under
Section 269 of the Act. Be that as it may, the
Executive Officer, Madduru Taluk Panchayat [ the first
respondent ] has passed the impugned order without
any reason, though there is an elaborate advertence
to the afore circumstances.
4. This Court is of the view that the first
respondent, in the light of the circumstances, should
have offered cogent reasons to decide on whether the
petitioner or the private respondents [ because their
mother is no more ], should have the benefit upon
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50493
WP No. 26391 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010582952026
calling for all the details from the panchayat and the
failure in this regard occasions an interference by
this Court but only to quash the impugned Order and
restore the proceedings for reconsideration. Hence,
the following.
ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed-in-part and the
impugned Order dated 29.08.2025
[ Annexure – D ] is quashed restoring the
proceedings for reconsideration.
[B] The petitioner, without further notice,
shall appear before the Executive Officer,
Madduru Taluk Panchayath [ the first
respondent ] on 27.10.2026, and the first
respondent, upon receipt of a certified
copy of this order from the petitioner,
shall ensure fresh notice of hearing is
extended to the private respondents and
the Panchayat Development Officer.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50493
WP No. 26391 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010582952026
[C] The first respondent shall call for all the
necessary details from the Village
Panchayat and verify the material to
decide, in accordance with law, on who
between the petitioner and the private
respondents will be entitled to the revenue
entries for the subject property.
[D] It would be needless to observe that if
there is a decision in the light of this
Court's observation and there is any
cause despite such decision, the
concerned must avail remedy under
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 with the competent Court of Original
Civil Jurisdiction.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
RB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103