ORDER : 1. The petitioners, Smt.Bharatamma, Sri.K.S.Yathiraj, Sri.Felix Anthony D’Souza and Smt.Sunita Flavia D’Souza, have approached this Court with the following prayers: “(i) Call for records from the 3rd Respondent pertaining to the impugned orders, (ii) Issue Writ or order quashing the impugned 11 ‘B’ khatha issued to the petitioners in respect of the Site No.122/1291 dated 11/12/2014, Site No.122/12NE dated 06/12/2014, Site No.124/162 NE dated 09/09/2015 and Site No.122/556SE dated 18/08/2016 of Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District (Annexures-A, A1, A2 & A3 respectively) issued by the 3rd Respondent. (iii) Issue Writ or order directing the 3rd Respondent to issue EKhatha in Form No.9 & 11 ‘A’ in accordance with Rule 28 and Rule 30 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Grama Panchayath Budgeting and Accounting) (Amendment) Rules, 2013, in the interest of justice and equity, (iv) Pass any other order including the cost of the Writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity”. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Grama Panchayath Budgeting and Accounting) Rules, 2006, these petitioners the site purchasers were earlier given the regular khata entries in Form No.11 under Rule 9 only under these Rules, but suddenly, without any reason, the 3rd Respondent-P.D.O., Kallubalu Grama Panchayath, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, changed these khata entries in Irregular Assessees’ List maintained in Form No.9A under Rule 11B inserted by way of Amendment Rules, 2013 notified on 14.06.2013. He further submitted before this Court that though the Layout plan was duly approved by the BMRDA vide Annexure-C dated 27.06.2002, subject to certain conditions but the said approval of Layout has never been cancelled or modified with the said BMRDA so far, though, notice to this effect was given subsequently to the said Builder M/s.Nirman Shelters (B) Pvt. Ltd., vide Annexure-H dated 29.06.2004, in which, clause No.13 of the said communication, it was stated that the earlier sanction given on 27.06.2002 stands cancelled but actually only approval was revised for the same Layout plan subject to certain conditions and therefore, for statistical purposes only, the old sanction dated 27.06.2002 was cancelled. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent-PDO has also brought to the notice of the Court, another document of similar nature filed along with the Statement of Objections vide Annexure-R3 dated 20.10.2005 (page No.79 of the paper book), by which, since the Builder had not surrendered the land for park/civic amenities site and road area in favour of the BMRDA, the remaining area of 40% could not be released for the said Layout in accordance with the Rules and therefore, the khata entries of the present petitioners were made under the Amended Rule 9-A in Form No.11-B as aforesaid. 4. Having heard the learned counsels, the short point arises in the present writ petitions is, as to whether in the absence of any final order passed against the Developer namely M/s.Nirman Shelters (B) Pvt. Ltd., finally canceling its approval of the said Layout, where the said bona fide purchasers like the petitioners who purchased the sites from the said Builder can be considered as assesses whose names deserves to be entered in Form No.11-B as irregular assessees’ for the tax purpose under these Rules or not? 5. The learned counsel for the Respondents was unable to point out any such final order passed against the said builder M/s.Nirman Shelters (B) Pvt. Ltd., Even if assuming for the argument sake that the said Builder failed to comply with the conditions of the approval of the Layout plan in accordance with the relevant Rules, the Respondents-authorities were bound to pass final orders in the matter after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the said Builder. Nothing of this sort appears to have been done in the present case, though notices to this effect appear to have been given to the said Builder way back in the year 2004-05. 6. This is little surprising for this Court that the Respondents-Public Authorities failed to take any final decision in the matter against the said Builder, despite the allegation that the said Builder failed to comply with the conditions of approval of such Layout plan in question. For the fault of the said Builder, if any, the present bona fide purchasers like the present petitioners, obviously cannot be punished and therefore, the khata entries in Form No.11 under Rule 9 cannot be altered by the 3rd Respondent-P.D.O., arbitrarily. 7. For the fault of the said Builder, if any, the present bona fide purchasers like the present petitioners, obviously cannot be punished and therefore, the khata entries in Form No.11 under Rule 9 cannot be altered by the 3rd Respondent-P.D.O., arbitrarily. 7. Admittedly, the said P.D.O., has not even served any notice giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before doing so. Therefore, his action is also hit by the principles of natural justice and therefore cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petitions deserves to be allowed and the same are allowed and the change of khata entries in the case of the present petitioners from Form No.11 under Rule-9 (unamended) to Form No.11-B under amended Rule 9-A are quashed. The Respondents are directed to restore the khata entries in favour of the petitioners as earlier they stood in the name of the petitioners. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- each from their personal resources in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 17.07.2017. The 2nd Respondent namely, the Chief Executive Officer and the 3rd Respondent-Panchayath Development Officer. However, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent–C.E.O., has filed an application before this Court that since no relief is claimed against the said Respondent No.2, his name may be deleted from the array of the Respondents and the amount deposited by him may be allowed to be refunded back to him. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not object to this submission. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent-Chief Executive Officer shall stand deleted from the array of the Respondents and the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by him may be refunded back by the Registry to him. However, the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the concerned P.D.O., shall stand forfeited and the same shall be paid as costs and compensation to the petitioners in equal proportion by separate cheques for Rs.5,000/- each in favour of the four petitioners for the aforesaid illegal change of khata entries by the said Respondent-P.D.O.