Revenue Authorities Cannot Act as Civil Courts: Karnataka High Court Quashes Katha Cancellation Passed Without Civil Court Declaration

“Deputy Commissioner Cannot Cancel Katha Based on Disputed Ownership Claims During Pendency of Civil Suit”, Karnataka High Court delivered a resounding judgment, emphatically denouncing the misuse of Section 322(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 by the Deputy Commissioner. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while setting aside the cancellation of katha, held that “a Deputy Commissioner exercising limited supervisory powers under Section 322 cannot pre-judge the ownership of property, especially when the dispute is pending before a competent civil court.” The court ordered immediate restoration of the petitioner’s katha, calling the cancellation “jurisdictionally unsustainable and procedurally flawed.”

The case revolved around property situated in Beluru Village, Hassan District, where the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Puneeth, claimed absolute ownership under a registered gift deed. The rival claimant, respondent No.4, asserted the property was ancestral and relied upon a compromise decree passed in O.S. No.31/2013. The Deputy Commissioner, while entertaining a belated revision petition by respondent No.4, cancelled the katha, ignoring the registered deed and ongoing civil proceedings in O.S. No.511/2023.

Justice Magadum commenced the ruling with a sharp observation: “This court finds that the Deputy Commissioner has grossly exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding title disputes under the pretext of katha cancellation,” condemning the Deputy Commissioner’s attempt to resolve a matter that “rightfully belongs to the domain of civil courts.”

The High Court examined the compromise decree and observed a glaring omission, noting that “there is no express reference to the petitioner’s portion of land being included in the compromise decree,” which cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the cancellation order. The judgment meticulously highlighted that respondent No.4 had already challenged the petitioner’s title in O.S. No.511/2023, directly bringing into question the validity of the gift deed and katha. The court remarked that “once a title dispute is sub judice, revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to alter municipal records based on disputed ownership.”

Crucially, the court found that the Deputy Commissioner violated statutory timelines under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Municipal (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1967, which mandates that revisions under Section 322 must be filed within 30 days. The Deputy Commissioner entertained a revision petition without any application for condonation of delay. Justice Magadum categorically held, “the impugned order deserves to be quashed solely on the ground of limitation as the Deputy Commissioner entertained a hopelessly time-barred revision without invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

Justice Magadum didn’t stop there. He examined the factual records, which included a conversion order, NOC for construction of a petrol bunk, approvals from the Town Planning Authority, and communications from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., all standing in favour of the petitioner. The court noted, “these documents establish the petitioner’s lawful possession and action pursuant to a valid registered deed, which the Deputy Commissioner could not have arbitrarily overturned.”

The court emphasized a critical legal principle stating, “municipal katha, once issued based on a valid registered deed, cannot be annulled by revenue officers unless a competent civil court nullifies the underlying title document.” It was further clarified that “Revisional jurisdiction under Section 322 is intended to correct patent errors in municipal records, not to decide complicated questions of ownership.”

In striking down the impugned cancellation, the High Court observed, “entertaining a revision petition filed beyond the prescribed period, deciding on title disputes, and pre-empting the outcome of civil proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of administrative authority.” Justice Magadum concluded with a firm direction, “the katha in the petitioner’s name shall be restored within six weeks and all consequential actions stand nullified.”

The ruling has effectively reinforced the principle that revenue and municipal authorities must strictly confine themselves to their limited statutory role and cannot substitute civil courts in matters of ownership and title adjudication.

The decision stands as a stern reminder to administrative authorities not to transgress jurisdictional boundaries and respects the primacy of civil courts in title disputes, especially where registered documents are in place and legal proceedings are pending.

Date of Decision: 14th July 2025