Karnataka High Court
Fatima W/O Muktumsab Toragal vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3223
WP No. 103995 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 103995 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
FATIMA W/O. MUKTUMSAB TORAGAL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SANGOLLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO RAJ PANCHAYAT (RDPR)
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT-591102,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GRAM PANCHAYAT, SANGOLLI-591115,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI 4. SRI. HUSSAINSAB MUKTUMBSAB SULTANBAI,
Location: HIGH AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
R/O. SANGOLLI-591115,
BENCH TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SRI. DILAWAR BALESAB SULTANBAI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. SANGOLLI-591115,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SMT. ARCHANA A. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3223
WP No. 103995 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN
TAA.PUM/GRAA.PUM/APPEAL NO.203/2022-23 DATED 27-03-2023
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order in Taa.Pum/Graa.Pum/Appeal No.203/2022-23 dated 27-03-2023 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-K. b. Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The facts in brief are;
2.1. Respondents No.4 and 5 had filed an application to the respondent No.3 Panchayat Development Officer for deletion of the names of the petitioner from the revenue records and -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3223 WP No. 103995 of 2023 entering the names of respondent No.4 and 5 therein.
2.2. The said request came to be rejected vide an endorsement dated 10.11.2020, directing respondents No.4 and 5 to approach the Civil Court and obtain necessary orders. 2.3. Without challenging the said endorsement, however in a convoluted manner, challenging the resolution of the panchayat dated 18.08.1985, under which the names of the petitioner had been entered into the records, an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('the Act of 1993', for short), came to be filed in Appeal No.203/2022-23.
2.4. The said appeal came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 directing entry of the name of respondents No.4 and 5 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3223 WP No. 103995 of 2023 in the records. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no original order has been challenged in the appeal as filed. Furthermore, the resolution under challenge is dated 18.08.1985, as regards which, though it is stated that a condonation of delay application has been filed, no such application has been filed.
4. Be that as it may, he submits that there is no condonation of delay which has been granted in the impugned order or any other order passed thereon. As such, without looking into these aspects, the impugned order could not be passed.
5. Sri. Laxman Mantagani, learned counsel, has also produced a memo along with the documents obtained under the RTI Act indicating that, on the date of the order, that is 27.03.2023, respondent -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3223 WP No. 103995 of 2023 No.2 was on a field visit from 8.30 a.m. and returned back at 10.20 p.m. and therefore, respondent No.3 not being in the office during the office hours, could not have passed the impugned order on the said date.
6. Ms.Archana Magadum, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5, submits that, it is by virtue of the resolution dated 18.08.1985 that the names of the petitioners were entered into and as such, the resolution having been challenged, the resolution is the original order.
7. Sri. V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that, in the appeal memo there is a mention made of an application for condemnation of delay. On enquiry as to whether the delay has been condoned, he is unable to point out any particular order in relation thereto. He also supports the case of learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 by stating that, it is the resolution dated -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3223 WP No. 103995 of 2023 18.08.1985 which has been challenged in an appeal under Section 269 of the Act of 1993.
8. Heard counsel for the petitioner and respondents and perused papers.
9. Section 269 of the Act of 1993 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
269. Appeals.-
(1) Any person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under this Act, unless appeal is provided elsewhere in this Act, may within thirty days from the date of such order appeal to 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. Sub-section (1) of Section 269 of the Act of 1993 requires that, any person aggrieved by any original order of the Gram Panchayat under the Act, unless -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3223 WP No. 103995 of 2023 appeal is provided elsewhere in the Act, may within 30 days from the date of such order appeal to the Executive Officer.
11. Though it is contended that the resolution 18.08.1985 is the original order, I am unable to accede to the said submission, inasmuch as the resolution cannot be said to be an original order passed by the Panchayat and therefore, is not amenable for an appeal under Section 269 of the Act of 1993.
12. Having come to such conclusion, there would be no requirement to go into the aspect of whether there is condonation of delay application filed and whether the same is allowed or not. But on the face of the impugned order, it is clear that no such application has been considered by the second respondent, even if so filed and as such, without consideration of such an application, the impugned order could also not have been passed.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3223 WP No. 103995 of 2023
13. This aspect is being referred to for the further reason that, as per the document produced by Sri. Laxman Mantagani, learned counsel, under the RTI Act, respondent No.2 is stated to be on a field visit from 8.30 am to 10.20 pm. Thus, all these factors if taken together, would indicate that all is not well in the office of respondent No.2 and an order has been passed in the manner as done without regard for the rule of law.
14. In that view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to cause an enquiry into the manner in which the order has been passed, more particularly, as regards respondent No.2 being on a field visit for the entire day, could not have passed the said order on that day and therefore, the date of the order does not appear to be correct. Of course, it is for the first respondent to cause an independent enquiry and ascertain the veracity of the allegations made against respondent No.2 and thereafter take any action. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3223 WP No. 103995 of 2023
15. In view of my finding above that an appeal under Section 269 of the Act of 1993 is not maintainable to challenge a resolution passed by the Panchayat and such a resolution is not an original order, the appeal itself is not maintainable. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-K, is quashed.
iii. Liberty is however reserved to respondents No.4 and 5 to approach appropriate Civil Court, obtain necessary orders and thereafter, if successful, seek for change in the entries.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1