Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Siddalinge Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:24962
                                                           WP No. 55379 of 2017




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 55379 OF 2017 (LB-RES)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1. SRI SIDDALINGE GOWDA
                         S/O. LATE. SRI. BASAVE GOWDA
                         AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
                         R/AT MADAPURA KOPPALU VILLAGE
                         KIKKERI HOBLI
                         KRISHNARAJAPET TLAUK
                         MANDYA DISTRICT
                         (NOTE SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

                      2.    SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
                            W/O. SRI. NAGARJE GOWDA
                            AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
                            R/AT MADAPURA KOPPALU VILLAGE
                            KIKKERI HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPET TLAUK
                            MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.
                                                                  ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI. ADITYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A           SRI.G S BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH        AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARMENT
                         REP BY SECRETARY, M S BUILDING
                         DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
                         BANGLORE 560001.

                      2.    EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            TALUK PANCHAYAT, KRISHNARAJAPET
                            MANDYA DIST 571426.

                      3.    SECRETARY
                            MADAPURA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:24962
                                       WP No. 55379 of 2017




     KIKKERI HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPET TLAUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.

4.   PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
     R/AT MADAPURA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
     KIKKERI HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPET TLAUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.

5.  SECRETARY
    THE KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK
    AGRICULTURE PRODUCE CO-OP
    MARKETING SOCIETY LTD
    KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1:
SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4:
SRI. B.K. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5.)



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE

RECORDS FROM R-2 IN APPEAL NO TALUK PANCHAYATH,

KARYA NIRVAHANADAHIKARI, GRAMA APPEAL NO.3/2017-2018

VIDE ANNEXURE-A.QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2017 IN

APPEAL NO. TALUK PANCHAYATH, KARYA NIRVAHANADHIKARI,

GRAMA    APPEAL   NO.3/2017-18    PASSSED     BY   R-2   VIDE

ANNEXURE-A. AND ETC.


      THIS   PETITION,   COMING   ON    FOR    PRELIMINIARY

HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:
                             -3-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:24962
                                      WP No. 55379 of 2017




                          ORDER

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A, whereby the katha made in favour of the petitioner by the Grama Panchayat has been set aside.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.76 measuring 4 guntas situated at Madapura Village was regularized by the Government in favour of the petitioner. The said grant has been recognized by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 02.01.1963 vide Annexure-E. In the year 2000, at the request of the petitioner, the katha has been entered in the name of the petitioner in the Panchayat register. Thereafter, in respect of the very same property, respondent No.5 approached the Panchayat and filed an application dated 24.03.2015 seeking for change of katha in his favour. Since the katha has already been entered in the name of the petitioner, respondent No.5 filed an appeal under Section 269 of the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:24962 WP No. 55379 of 2017 Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act 1993 (for short 'the Act') before the respondent No.2, Executive officer, Taluk Panchayat. The memorandum of appeal filed by respondent No.5 before the respondent No.2 is produced in this petition as Annexure-B. The prayer sought in the said appeal reads thus:

DzÀ PÁgÀt ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÄÀ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ ªÀiÁzÁ¥ÀÄgÀ PÉÆ¥Àà®Ä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 76 gÀ ¥ÀƪÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ 40 Cr, GvÀÛgÀ zÀQët 100 CrAiÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¤zÉð±À£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV £ÁåAiÀiÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£ÀvÉAiÀÄ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ ¥ÁæxÀð£É.

3. As per the provisions of Section 269 of the Act, any person aggrieved by the original order of the Grama Panchayat, can maintain an appeal under Section 269 of the Act.

4. In the case on hand, it is very clear from the prayer sought by respondent No.5 in the appeal filed under -5- NC: 2024:KHC:24962 WP No. 55379 of 2017 Section 269 of the Act before the respondent No.2 (Annexure-D) that the respondent No.5 has not challenged any original order passed by the Grama Panchayat. Hence, the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 before the respondent No.2, is not maintainable.

5. The name of the petitioner has been entered in the katha in the year 2000. The appeal by respondent No.5 has been filed before the respondent No.2 in the year 2017. As per Section 269 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of original order passed by the Grama Panchayat. On the ground of delay also, the appeal filed by respondent No.5 under Section 269 of the Act is not maintainable.

6. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 269 of the Act. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed and impugned order is liable to be quashed. -6-

NC: 2024:KHC:24962 WP No. 55379 of 2017

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 30.08.2017 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52