Karnataka High Court
Smt Rathnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2019
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION Nos.57096-57097/2016(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
W/O LATE. KRISHNAPPA
2. K.V.SURESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE. KRISHNAPPA
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
VISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE
BELAMARANAHALLI POST
NARASAPURA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M V., ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
HOSAKOTE TALUK PANCHAYAT
HOSAKOTE TOWN AND TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 122.
3. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
TAVAREKERE GRAMA PANCHAYAT
NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TLAUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562122
4. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
MAJOR
W/O LATE. KRISHNAPPA
R/AT GERAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562122
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA. FOR R1,
SRI.B.BOPPANNA & SRI.H.K.SATHEESHA, ADVS.
FOR R2 & R3,
SRI. K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADV. FOR R4.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.10.2016 ISSUED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-F BY HOLD THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND
OPPOSED TO LAW; CONSEQUENTLY AND DIRECT R-2
TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONERS AND DECIDE THE SAME IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF KARNATAKA
PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, RULES AND REGULATIONS.
3
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the endorsement dated 18.10.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the property bearing katha No.21 situated in Gerahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District was originally allotted in favour of late Krishnappa, who is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2. The respondent No.4 claiming to be the second wife of Lake Krishnappa obtained katha from respondent No.3 in respect of property bearing katha No.21 and the name of the respondent No.4 has been entered in the katha register in the year 2013-14. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the appeal before the 4 Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat under Section 269 of the Act. The respondent No.2 allowed the appeal by order dated 22.6.2015 vide Annexure-C. Pursuant to the order dated 22.6.2015 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C, a resolution has been passed vide Annexure-E dated 14.3.2016 by the Village Panchayat that the property No.21 is different from property No.18. Being aggrieved by the resolution dated 14.3.2016, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 under Section 269 of the Act. The respondent No.2 without any enquiry as prescribed under Section 269 of the Act, has issued the impugned endorsement dated 18.10.2016 vide Annexure-F. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Sri.M.V.Chandrashekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that originally the property was granted in favour of late 5 Krishnappa. The petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of Late Krishnappa. After the death of Late Krishnappa, the petitioners have succeeded to the property and hence, they have filed the application for change of katha. The Panchayat without authority of law has entered the name of the respondent No.4, who is claiming to be second wife of the Krishnappa. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has passed the order directing the Panchayat to continue the name of Krishnappa till the parties produce the necessary documents to establish their rights. Subsequently, the Panchayat has passed the resolution vide Annexure-E. First time, the Panchayat contended that the property bearing Katha No.21 is different from katha No.18. He further contended that in the appeal filed by the petitioners before the 6 respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 without giving any notice to the parties as per Section 269 of the Act has issued endorsement, the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 269 of the Act. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petitions.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that the property bearing katha No.21 and property bearing katha No.18 are different properties. The petitioners have not produced the documents establishing their right in respect of the property in dispute. Therefore, the Panchayat has rightly passed the resolution vide Annexure-E. He further contended that the claim of the petitioner No.1 that she is the first wife of the deceased Krishnappa has been disputed by the respondent No.4. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7
5. Sri.Satheesha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that in the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 269 of the Act, there is compliance of provisions of Section 269 of the Act. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the writ papers.
7. Detailed narration of facts would not call for any reiteration. After the appeal was filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.6/2014-15, the same was remanded with a direction that the Panchayat shall continue the name of Krishnappa in the katha register till the parties produce the documents to establish regarding their rights. The relevant portion of the order passed by 8 the respondent No.2 dated 22.6.2015 is extracted hereunder:
"F J¯Áè ªÉÄð£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯É ¥ÀÄgÁªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àjò°¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1993 gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt269 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
vÁªÀgÉPÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÁå¦ÛUÉ §gÀĪÀ UÉÃgɺÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ D¹Û £ÀA§gï 21 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ²æêÀÄw £ÁgÁAiÀÄtªÀÄä EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÆ® SÁvÉzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÁzÀ ¯ÉÃmï ²æà PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°èAiÉÄà ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ. F D¹ÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀtªÀÅ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÉà PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À®Ä DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ."É
8. After the order of the Executive Officer vide Annexure-C, the Panchayat has passed a fresh resolution on 14.3.2016 that the property No.18 is different from property No.21. Being aggrieved by the 9 same, the petitioner has filed the appeal under Section 269 of the Act.
9. For better reference, Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act reads thus:
269. Appeals- 1) Any person aggrieved by any order of Grama Panchayat under this Act, unless appeal is provided else where in the Executive Officer.
2) The Appellate Authority may after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard and after such enquiry as it deems fit, decide the appeal and its decision shall be final.
3) Any appeal under sub-section (1) pending before the Zilla Parishad shall on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 stand transferred to the Assistant Commissioner and such appeal shall be decided by him as if it has been filed before him."
10
10. As per Section 269 of the Act, any person aggrieved by the order of the Grama Panchayat, the remedy is to file an appeal under Section 269 of the Act. Thereafter, the appellate authority after hearing the parties has to pass an order.
11. In the case on hand, the impugned endorsement issued by the authority is contrary to the provisions of Section 269 of the Act and no notice has been given to the aggrieved party. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued vide Annexure-F is liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F dated 18.10.2016 is hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 with a direction to the respondent No.2 to 11 consider the case of the petitioners challenging the resolution vide Annexure-E in accordance with law in terms of Section 269 of the Act within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel in these petitions, the parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 3.10.2019 without expecting any further notice from the respondent No.2.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM