JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals involving similar and akin issues have been considered together and are taken up for final disposal at this stage itself by way of this common order. 2. These intra court appeals are filed by the State of Karnataka as well as Panchayath Development Officer [PDO] assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2017 in W.P.Nos.8621-24/2017 whereby writ petitions filed by the private respondents have been allowed by quashing the change of khatha entries made in respect of the properties of private respondents herein. 3. The learned Single Judge on considering the matter in extenso, allowed the writ petitions forfeiting the amount of Rs.20,000/-deposited by the PDO and directed to pay the same as costs and compensation to the petitioners in equal proportion by separate cheques for Rs.5,000/-in favour of the four petitioners. 4. Being aggrieved, the State of Karnataka as well as the Panchayath Development Officer are in appeal. 5. The private respondents being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.3 in changing the khatha entries from Form No.11 under Rule 9 of Karnataka Panchayath Raj [Grama Panchayat Budgeting and Accounting] Rules, 2006 [‘Rules’ for short] to Form No.11-B under Rule 9-A of the Amended Rules, inserted by way of Amendment Rules 2013 with effect from 14.06.2013, had filed the writ petitions. It was contended that in terms of duly approved layout plan dated 27.06.2002, regular khata entries were made but the same were changed by respondent No.3 for non-compliance of the conditions of approval of the layout plan by the developer-M/s. Nirman Shelters [B] Pvt. Ltd., unilaterally assuming that the sites in question purchased from the said builder comes within 40% of sites, not released by Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority [BMRDA]. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.6692/2017 and allied matters, submitted that the developer-M/s. Nirman Shelters [B] Pvt. Ltd., without following the conditions of approval for development of the layout in setting up civic amenity sites, parks, drainage, playgrounds, roads etc., and handing over to the authorities executing the relinquishment deed, alienated unreleased sites of 40% in favour of the petitioners. Considering these aspects, respondent No.3 changed the khatha entries relating to the respondents from Form No.11 to Form No.11-B, treating the same as irregular sites, pursuant to the amendment of the Rules 2013 and the circular instructions issued by the Government of Karnataka to implement the aforesaid Rules. 7. It was argued by the learned counsel that after the approval is accorded from the competent authority of the Urban Development and releasing the sites, such sites can be considered as regular sites and Form No.9 and 11-A can be issued. 8. Learned counsel Sri. A. Nagarajappa appearing for the appellant in W.A.Nos.5632/2017 & 69-71/2018, adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the relevant aspect of the matter as regards non-releasing of 40% of the sites by the BMRDA to the developer. Prima facie, it is apparent that the sites purchased by the petitioners comes under the non-released sites of 40% and thus change of khatha entries effected is in accordance with law. That being the position, the order of the learned Single Judge forfeiting the amount deposited by the PDO and directing to pay the same as costs and compensation to the petitioners would adversely affect the service conditions of the appellant. Hence, seeks for allowing the writ appeals, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge impugned herein. 9. Learned counsel Sri. M.S. Bhagwat appearing for the private respondents justifying the impugned order, submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners before making changes in the khatha entries, such action being hit by the principles of natural justice, the order impugned deserves to be confirmed. It was submitted that, non-compliance of certain conditions by the developer or any dispute between the developer namely, M/s. Nirman Shelters [B] Pvt. Ltd., and the authorities concerned cannot disturb the accrued rights of the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the private respondents has filed a memo along with the copy of the letter of the Government of Karnataka dated 10.10.2018 addressed to all the Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Panchayath, regarding issuance of instructions of E-Khatha in Form No.9 and 11A in respect of the sites in the jurisdiction of the Grama Panchayath. 11. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 11. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 12. It is not in dispute that the khatha entries relating to the properties of the private respondents got changed by the unilateral decision of the respondent No.3 and Form No.11-B were issued sans providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Unless there is a reasonable opportunity of hearing provided, any tinkering of civil rights accrued to the parties, adversely resulting in evil consequences cannot be approved. Infraction of this fundamental principles of law goes to the root of the matter making such a decision and the proceedings thereof, non-est in the eye of law. It is imperative that the PDO adheres to the principles of natural justice. Though the learned counsel argued that, as per the directions issued by the Government of Karnataka on 10.10.2018 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, as onetime measure and exception was granted for single site approved plan not for the bulk allotment as in the present case, these factual aspects cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition proceedings. Such a decision has to be taken only after holding an enquiry and not by unilateral decision. 13. In the circumstances, though we are not persuaded to consider interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of setting aside the impugned khatha entries relating to the properties of the private respondents herein but deem it proper to extend an opportunity to the competent authority to take a final decision in the matter after holding an enquiry as regards the alleged irregularity of the sites owned by the private respondents qua non releasing of 40% of sites by the BMRDA and noncompliance of conditions of approval of layout plan by the developer. 14. Considering the totality of circumstances, we do not find any personal malafide on the part of the PDO is concerned. It appears appropriate to make it clear that the observations in the impugned order and in this judgment as regards the action taken by him shall be considered advisory. However, as the amount of Rs.20,000/-has already been deposited by the PDO, we deem it appropriate to order that the same shall be transferred to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. 15. It appears appropriate to make it clear that the observations in the impugned order and in this judgment as regards the action taken by him shall be considered advisory. However, as the amount of Rs.20,000/-has already been deposited by the PDO, we deem it appropriate to order that the same shall be transferred to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. 15. Subject to the aforesaid observations, Writ Appeals stand disposed of, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge as far as quashing of the khatha entries of the private respondents made in Form No.11-B under the amended Rule 9-A and directing the respondents to restore the khatha entries in favour of the petitioners. However, an opportunity is provided to the appellants/competent authority to hold an enquiry and take a final decision in the matter after providing an opportunity of hearing to the private respondents, in accordance with law. All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.