Karnataka High Court Upholds Closure of Lokayukta Complaints in Family Property and Khata Dispute
Private Property Dispute Cannot Be Converted Into Repeated Complaints Against Panchayat Officials: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Shreyas P. challenging two orders of the Karnataka Lokayukta that had closed his complaints concerning the transfer of khata in favour of another family member.
A Division Bench comprising Justice D. K. Singh and Justice T. M. Nadaf held that the dispute was essentially a private property dispute already pending before a civil court. The Court observed that revenue entries do not create title and that the Lokayukta could not be repeatedly approached to reopen the same grievance.
Facts
The petitioner, Shreyas P., claimed that he had submitted an application dated 5 December 2018 before the Kannur Gram Panchayat seeking transfer of khata in respect of House No. 90 situated in Survey Nos. 98 and 99 of Kannur Village.
According to him, he had filed all relevant documents and paid the required fee, but no order was passed on his application.
On 25 August 2023, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the status of his khata application and whether any action had been taken on any other application concerning the same property.
The Panchayat replied on 1 September 2023 and informed him that the khata had already been transferred in favour of K. N. Jayashankar approximately 11 months before the petitioner filed his application.
The Panchayat stated that the transfer had been made on the basis of a Will dated 28 January 2014.
The petitioner then filed a complaint before the Karnataka Lokayukta.
He alleged that K. N. Jayashankar had misused his position as a former Panchayat President and that his wife had also held office as a former Panchayat Member.
The petitioner further alleged that the Will relied upon for effecting the khata transfer was fabricated and that the Panchayat authorities had improperly acted upon it.
He pointed out that civil and criminal proceedings were already pending between the parties, including Original Suit No. 70 of 2019 before the Senior Civil Judge at Magadi.
The Karnataka Lokayukta examined the complaint and found that Jayashankar had applied for the khata transfer on 16 December 2017, whereas the petitioner’s application was filed only on 5 December 2018.
The Lokayukta also noted that the title dispute and the validity of the Will were already pending before the civil court.
By order dated 21 October 2024, the Lokayukta closed the complaint under Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
The petitioner was left free to pursue remedies under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act or other applicable laws.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed another RTI application on 29 August 2025 seeking copies of the documents submitted by Jayashankar along with his khata application.
After obtaining those documents, the petitioner filed a second complaint before the Lokayukta.
By order dated 19 November 2025, the Lokayukta closed the second complaint, holding that the same grievance had already been considered and that the Lokayukta had no statutory power to review or reconsider its earlier order.
The petitioner then approached the Karnataka High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were:
- Whether the Karnataka Lokayukta was justified in closing the petitioner’s first complaint under Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
- Whether the complaint concerned a genuine allegation of misconduct by public officials or merely reflected a private family property dispute.
- Whether the availability of a civil remedy and statutory appeal justified refusal of a Lokayukta investigation.
- Whether the Lokayukta had power to review or reconsider its earlier order on a second complaint concerning the same dispute.
- Whether new documents obtained through the RTI Act entitled the petitioner to reopen the matter before the Lokayukta.
- Whether revenue and Panchayat authorities could decide the validity of the Will or the ownership of the property.
- Whether khata and revenue entries created or conclusively proved title.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the Lokayukta’s orders under Article 226.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Lokayukta had wrongly declined to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
He submitted that his complaint contained allegations of wrongdoing and misconduct against public officials and was not merely a grievance concerning a private dispute.
According to him, Section 8(1)(b) did not bar an investigation into allegations of misconduct merely because another remedy was available.
The petitioner contended that there was no equally effective or efficacious alternative remedy for investigating the alleged misconduct of the Panchayat and revenue officials.
He argued that the officials had acted upon an allegedly fabricated Will and had transferred the khata in favour of Jayashankar without properly considering his competing claim.
It was submitted that Jayashankar had taken advantage of his former position as Panchayat President and his wife’s former position as Panchayat Member.
The petitioner further argued that the second complaint was based upon additional documents obtained through the RTI Act and was therefore not merely a review petition against the earlier order.
He relied upon the Karnataka High Court’s decision in T. N. Raviprakash v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
According to him, that decision recognised that where a complaint contains allegations rather than a mere service or administrative grievance, Section 8(1)(b) cannot be invoked to prevent an investigation.
The petitioner sought quashing of both Lokayukta orders and a direction to reconsider his complaint and hold an inquiry against the concerned officials.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State supported the orders passed by the Karnataka Lokayukta.
It argued that the dispute was essentially a private property conflict between family members.
According to the State, the petitioner was attempting to involve public officials in a personal dispute concerning inheritance, the genuineness of a Will and ownership of immovable property.
The State submitted that a civil suit had already been instituted in 2019 and was pending before the competent civil court.
It was argued that the civil court was the proper forum to decide:
- whether the Will was genuine;
- who had title to the property;
- whether the khata had been lawfully transferred; and
- what consequential entries should be made.
The respondents contended that the Panchayat had acted upon an earlier application filed by Jayashankar before the petitioner filed his own application.
They argued that repeated complaints against public officials could undermine their confidence and interfere with the discharge of official duties.
The State characterised the subsequent Lokayukta complaint as an attempt to exert pressure and settle private scores.
It further submitted that the Lokayukta had no statutory power to review its earlier order or repeatedly consider the same grievance.
The State therefore urged the Court to dismiss the writ petition.
Analysis of the Law
Scope of Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act
Section 8(1)(b) permits the Lokayukta to decline investigation where the complainant has or had an effective remedy before another forum.
The Court examined the true nature of the petitioner’s complaint rather than merely the terminology used in it.
Although the petitioner described the matter as one involving misconduct by officials, the substance of the dispute concerned:
- competing claims over family property;
- the genuineness of a Will;
- the legality of a khata transfer; and
- ownership rights over the property.
These were matters falling within the jurisdiction of the civil court and the statutory authorities under the Panchayat laws.
The Court agreed with the Lokayukta that the complaint could not be converted into a parallel mechanism for deciding private property rights.
Difference Between Allegation and Grievance
The petitioner relied upon the distinction between an “allegation” and a “grievance” under the Lokayukta Act.
However, the Court held that the substance of the complaint showed that the petitioner was aggrieved by the Panchayat’s decision to enter another person’s name in the khata records.
The mere use of allegations such as fabrication, influence or misconduct did not automatically convert a private title dispute into a matter requiring Lokayukta investigation.
The Court found that the complaint was primarily grievance-based and therefore fell within the statutory exclusion applied by the Lokayukta.
No Power of Review
The Karnataka Lokayukta is a statutory authority and possesses only those powers expressly or impliedly conferred by the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
The statute does not confer a general power to review or reconsider an earlier final order.
Once the first complaint had been closed, the petitioner could not seek reconsideration of the same dispute merely by filing another complaint based upon additional documents.
The appropriate course was to challenge the original order before the competent court or pursue remedies before the civil and statutory forums.
Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Title and Validity of Will
The petitioner alleged that the Will relied upon by Jayashankar was fabricated.
The Court held that neither the Lokayukta nor the Panchayat and revenue officials could finally determine the genuineness of the Will or the ownership of the property.
Such matters require:
- examination of witnesses;
- proof of execution and attestation;
- comparison of documents;
- consideration of succession rights; and
- adjudication of competing title claims.
These questions fall within the exclusive domain of the civil court.
Since Original Suit No. 70 of 2019 was already pending, the petitioner could raise all his objections before that court.
Legal Effect of Khata and Revenue Entries
The Court reiterated that khata, mutation and revenue entries are not documents of title.
Such entries are primarily maintained for fiscal, administrative and tax-related purposes.
They may carry presumptive evidentiary value but do not create ownership or extinguish title.
Any entry made by the Panchayat or revenue authority remains subject to the final declaration of rights by the competent civil court.
Thus, even if the khata had been entered in Jayashankar’s name, that entry would not conclusively decide ownership.
Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction
Judicial review under Article 226 is directed against illegality, irrationality, jurisdictional error and procedural unfairness.
The Court found that the Lokayukta had considered:
- the chronology of the rival applications;
- the pending civil suit;
- the nature of the property dispute;
- the availability of alternative statutory remedies; and
- the absence of power to review its earlier order.
The Lokayukta’s conclusion was neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction.
The Court therefore found no ground to interfere.
Precedent Analysis
T. N. Raviprakash v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
The petitioner relied upon this decision to argue that Section 8(1)(b) cannot bar an inquiry where a complaint contains allegations of misconduct rather than a simple grievance.
In that case, the Coordinate Bench had examined the nature of the complaint and found that it contained substantive allegations warranting consideration.
The present Division Bench distinguished the decision on facts.
It held that the complaint before it essentially arose from a private property dispute and a challenge to khata entries.
The dispute concerning the Will and ownership was already pending before a civil court.
Therefore, the precedent did not assist the petitioner.
Principles Governing Revenue Entries
The Court applied the settled legal principle that revenue entries do not confer title.
Any khata or mutation entry is subject to the declaration of ownership by the civil court.
The Court relied on this principle to conclude that the petitioner’s substantive remedy lay in the pending civil suit and not through repeated Lokayukta complaints.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner was attempting to transform a private family dispute into proceedings against multiple public officials.
The central controversy was whether the property belonged to the petitioner or Jayashankar and whether the Will relied upon by Jayashankar was genuine.
These issues were already before the civil court.
The petitioner’s khata application was filed in December 2018, whereas Jayashankar’s application had been filed earlier in December 2017.
The Panchayat had already acted upon the earlier application before the petitioner approached it.
The RTI reply merely informed the petitioner of what had already occurred.
The Lokayukta found no sufficient material showing dereliction of duty or misconduct by the officials warranting investigation.
The Court agreed that public officials could not be repeatedly subjected to complaints merely because one family member disputed an entry made in favour of another.
It further found that the second complaint was substantially an attempt to reopen the first complaint.
The additional documents obtained under the RTI Act did not alter the basic nature of the dispute.
Since the Lokayukta had no power of review, it was justified in closing the second complaint.
The Court emphasised that the petitioner was not left without a remedy.
He could:
- pursue the pending civil suit;
- challenge the khata order under the applicable Panchayat law;
- question the Will before the civil court; and
- seek appropriate consequential correction of records after obtaining a declaration of rights.
The Court therefore found no illegality in either of the Lokayukta’s orders.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court upheld:
- the Lokayukta’s order dated 21 October 2024 closing the first complaint; and
- the order dated 19 November 2025 declining to reopen or review the same grievance.
The Court held that:
- the dispute was essentially a private property and inheritance dispute;
- the validity of the Will and ownership of the property must be decided by the civil court;
- khata and revenue entries do not create title;
- the Lokayukta was justified in declining investigation under Section 8(1)(b);
- the Lokayukta had no statutory power to review its earlier order; and
- repeated complaints could not be used to involve public officials in a private family dispute.
The petitioner was left free to pursue all his contentions in the pending civil suit and before the appropriate statutory authorities.
No order as to costs was passed.
Case: Shreyas P. v. Karnataka Upa Lokayukta & Ors.
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 38917 of 2025
Judges: Justice D. K. Singh and Justice T. M. Nadaf
Date: 23 June 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed; closure of both Lokayukta complaints upheld, with the petitioner directed to pursue the property, Will and khata dispute before the competent civil and statutory forums.
