Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kalavathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21321
WP No. 24075 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24075 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KALAVATHI
W/O PANDURANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KUNTEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI AND POST
SIRA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572137.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR D K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI AND PANCHAYATH RAJ,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF VIDHANA VEEDI, PODIUM BLOCK
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TUMKURU ZILLA PANCHAYATH
TUMKURU DISTRICT
TUMKURU-572102.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SIRA TALUK PANCHAYATH
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21321
WP No. 24075 of 2022
SIRA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572137.
4. THE SEEBI AGRAHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572137.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
5. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SEEBI AGRAHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572137.
6. K R DINESH
S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KUNTEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI AND POST
SIRA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572137.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1
SRI. J.N. NAVEEN., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5
SRI. S.V. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITTUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE MEMO DTD 10.11.2022, BEARING
NO.THA.PA.SHI/HU.GRA.PAM/VI.VA-01/2022-23 ISSUED BY
THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO NOT TO
MUTATE ANY KHATHA IN FAVOUR OF R-6 IN RESPECT OF
REMAINING PORTION MEASURING 12 X 33 FEET AS CLAIMED
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:21321
WP No. 24075 of 2022
BY R-6 OF SITE BEARING KHATHA NO.1/1, ASSESSMENT
NO.2/14/15, PROPERTY BEARING NO.2, SITUATED AT THE
GRAMATANA LIMITS OF SEEBI AGRAHARA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH, KUNTEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KALAMBELLA
HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner having purchased the land in question measuring 55 x 33 ft. situated within the limits of Seebi Agrahara Grama Panchayat, Kuntegowdanahalli Village, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkuru District, under a registered sale deed dated 18.07.2013 executed by respondent No.6, got her name entered in the records of respondent No.4 - Seebi Agrahara Gram Panchayat. However, at the instance of respondent No.6, it appears that respondent No.3- Executive Officer of the Sira Taluk Panchayat, passed the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 directing the Gram Panchayat to show the name of respondent No.6 in respect of the remaining land said to -4- NC: 2023:KHC:21321 WP No. 24075 of 2022 have been existing after the sale deed was executed by respondent No.6 in favour of the petitioner herein.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the schedule shown in the sale deed, it is clear that respondent No.6 sold immovable property measuring 55 x 33 ft. having roads on two sides i.e., on the western side and southern side. By virtue of the impugned order, the road shown in the western side is now said to be shown as the property belonging to respondent No.6. Learned Counsel therefore submits that unless the schedule shown in the sale deed is rectified voluntarily if the petitioner had agreed, or by a declaration of a Court of law, respondent No.6 could not have approached the Gram Panchayat seeking entry of his name in respect of the remaining portion of the land which was wrongly shown as road. However, no such request was made by respondent No.6 to the petitioner. The learned Counsel would further submit that it is also not known as to how the Gram Panchayat could forward the application filed by -5- NC: 2023:KHC:21321 WP No. 24075 of 2022 respondent No.6 to the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat and under what power the Executive Officer passed the impugned order.
3. When a question was posed to the learned Counsel for respondent-Panchayat as to which provision was invoked by the authorities while passing the impugned order, the learned Counsel has no answer.
5. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the same is passed without authority of law. It also becomes a disputed question of title which could not have been decided by the respondent authorities. It is another matter that if respondent No.6 had approached the petitioner and got the schedule shown in the sale deed rectified showing the western portion of the land as the remaining land belonging to respondent No. 6, the Gram Panchayat could have taken note of the same. No such exercise having -6- NC: 2023:KHC:21321 WP No. 24075 of 2022 been undertaken at the hands of respondent No.6, the sixth respondent could not have approached the Gram Panchayat seeking registration of khata in his name in respect of the western portion of the property sold to the petitioner.
6. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.11.2022 at Annexure 'A' passed by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Sira, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-