IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.10835 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI DHARANESH S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT EW 10/263

2^ND CROSS, JAYANAGAR EXTENSION HASSAN 34.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LT NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT EW 10/263, 2^ND CROSS Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S JAYANAGAR EXTN Location: H IGH HASSAN - 34.

COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 01.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 ANNEXURE- A PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT (R2) TO THE EXTENT OF ENTER THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING ID NO.12-2-521-274A, DOOR NO.274 A IN SY.NO.69/1 SAS 442 MEASURING 60 X 50 FEET IN WARD NO.12, SITUATED AT CROSS ROAD, JAYANAGAR EXTENSION, HASSAN.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure–A) passed by Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.2, to the extent of entering the khata in the name of the respondent No.1 in respect of the subject property.

2. Heard Sri. Padeep K. C., learned counsel appearing for the respondent petitioner; Sri. Mahesh H., along with Sri. Anoop Haranahalli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2- State.

3. Sri Pradeep K.C., learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the order dated 27.01.2021 (Annexure–H) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division, that the Gift Deed dated 28.04.2016 (Annexure–B) is void, is incorrect. He further contended that, while doing so, the Assistant Commissioner directed the revenue authorities to enter the names of the petitioner and respondent No.1 jointly in the khata in respect of the subject property. However, the said order, according to the learned counsel, has been erroneously interfered with by respondent No.2 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

4. It is further argued that a perusal of the recitals in the Gift Deed dated 28.04.2016 does not disclose any condition requiring the petitioner to maintain respondent No.1. Therefore, the finding of both the authorities declaring the Gift Deed as void and same is contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another, reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225. Learned counsel further submitted that even though the Sub-Divisional Officer had ordered for maintaining joint khata as per Annexure–H, however, the same was wrongly set aside by the respondent No.2, which calls for interference in the present writ petition.

5. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that ,respondent No.2 has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner in its entirety, including the observation directing entry of joint khata in the names of the petitioner and respondent No.1, which is unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. Mahesh H., learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the property in question is self-acquired property of respondent No.1. It is contended that the Assistant Commissioner committed a serious error in directing entry of joint khata in the names of the petitioner and respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the said direction, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, who, after considering the material on record, has rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, it is argued that the writ petition deserves