Karnataka High Court
Mr Srinivasaiah vs The Executive Officer on 3 November, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:39312
WP No. 17213 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 17213 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SRINIVASAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT DODDA UPPALLA VILALGE
DEVALAPURA HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
Digitally signed by MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA ... PETITIONER
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. PRASAD K R RAO., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYAT
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130
TUMKUR DISTRICT
2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
PADUVAGERE GRAMA PANCHAYAT
AMRUTHURU HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130
TUMKUR DISTRICT
3. MR B.G. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE GUNDAIAH
AGED MAJOR
BATTEHALLI VILLAGE
AMRUTHURU HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:39312
WP No. 17213 of 2022
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130
TUMKUR DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI P.P. JAYAKUMARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE R-1 IN
V/P/C/APPEAL/14/2022-23 AT ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or order, thereby quashing the impugned proceedings pending before the Respondent No.1 in V/P/C/Appeal/14/2022-23 at Annexure-A;
ii. Pass such other order or grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on an appeal filed by respondent No.3 under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ['Act' for short], the e-katha issued in favour of the -3- NC: 2023:KHC:39312 WP No. 17213 of 2022 petitioner wayback in the year 2017 is brought in question which cannot be so done and as such, a submission is made that the said proceedings are to be quashed, more so on account of respondent No.3 having no personal lis in the matter.
3. Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 would submit that the order which has been challenged is the issuance of katha which was in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Panchayat which will be a regular order in terms of Section 269 of the Act, as such amenable for an appeal under Section 269 of the Act which would be considered in accordance with law and on the basis of submissions placed on record.
4. Insofar as the issue of locus is concerned, respondent No.3 submits that he is a neighbour of petitioner, residing in same locality and as such he has locus.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused papers.
6. Firstly insofar as the locus is concerned, respondent No.3 claims to be a neighbour residing in the very same -4- NC: 2023:KHC:39312 WP No. 17213 of 2022 locality, whether he does or not is an aspect which would have to be considered in the appeal pending under Section 269 of the Act. Insofar as the reliefs which have been sought for in the appeal, what has been sought for is the cancellation of e-katha issued in favour of the petitioner, though the same is belated, same would have to be considered in accordance with law inasmuch as the issuance of katha is a original order which can be considered in terms of Section 269 of the Act. Thus, no grounds having being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Liberty is reserved to petitioner and respondent No.3 to place such contentions and documents as they wish to rely upon before respondent No.1.
Sd/-
JUDGE LN