After finding fabricated records used to claim Panchayat land, Karnataka High Court quashes compromise decree and imposes ₹2 lakh costs .

The dispute concerned Site No. 568/A/5, measuring 50′ × 80′, at Kadaravalli (Kadrolli) village.

Erappa claimed that the Gram Panchayat had allotted the site to him by resolution dated 18 February 2022, in exchange for an earlier site allegedly used for public purposes.

He sought electronic property records and permission to build; the Panchayat later cancelled the allotment, asserting that the site was reserved for a village Chavadi and that the transfer lacked required prior sanction.

Erappa challenged the cancellation in W.P. No. 108743/2025.

Separately, the Panchayat challenged a compromise decree for specific performance obtained by Shivanand and Jyotiba against Erappa, concerning the same site; the Panchayat had not been joined in that suit.

During the writ proceedings, Erappa filed a memo advancing a different account of the site’s allotment and documents purporting to support it.

The Court found that account inconsistent with his earlier pleadings and identified apparent alterations and other irregularities in the documents.

1. Whether the Gram Panchayat’s 2022 resolution allotting the subject site to Erappa could confer a valid right in the absence of the prior sanction required by law, particularly where the site was reserved for a public amenity.

2. Whether the compromise decree dated 8 March 2025 should be set aside as having been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation concerning Panchayat property.

3. Whether Erappa was entitled to relief against the Panchayat’s cancellation decision in light of the inconsistencies and apparent manipulation in the material he produced.

Section 209 of the Karnataka Gram Panchayat and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 makes the Gram Panchayat’s power to dispose of property subject to rules made by the Government.

Rule 5 of the Karnataka Gram Panchayat (Acquisition and Transfer of Movable and Immovable Property by Gram Panchayats) Rules, 1996 requires prior approval of the Taluk Panchayat for a transfer of immovable property exceeding the prescribed value; the Court held that a disposition made without the required sanction is null and void.

The Court also applied the principle that a decree procured by fraud or misrepresentation, and an attempt to mislead the Court through false pleadings or fabricated documents, cannot be allowed to stand.

The Court found that Erappa’s claimed allotment under the 2022 resolution was unsupported by the required prior sanction and concerned land said to be reserved for a Chavadi; it therefore could not establish a valid right to the site.

His later claim that the site had been allotted to him in 1975 contradicted his earlier case that it was allotted in 2022 in lieu of Site No. 236.

The Court also found inconsistencies and apparent alterations in the documents filed to support the later account.

The specific-performance suit was filed and compromised within a short period, without the Panchayat being joined, while Erappa continued to pursue Panchayat records and construction permission for the site.

In the Court’s view, these circumstances supported its finding that the compromise decree was the product of fraud and misrepresentation.

It dismissed Erappa’s W.P. No. 108743/2025 with costs of ₹2,00,000 payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad.

It directed the Gram Panchayat to initiate criminal action concerning the alleged fabrication of Panchayat records and report within 30 days, and directed the Registry to initiate appropriate criminal-contempt proceedings against Erappa, Shivanand and Jyotiba.