Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmamma vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 25064 of 2022 A/W
WP No.25088 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 25064 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
A/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 25088 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
W.P.NO. 25064/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT INDRASANHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-563101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADV.)
Digitally signed
by AND:
MARIGANGAIAH
PREMAKUMARI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
-2-
WP No. 25064 of 2022 A/W
WP No.25088 of 2022
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-562110.
3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-563101.
4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
JALIJE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-563101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R.NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI M.S.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-A ORDER PASSED BY R4 DATED 24.12.2021 BY
PASSING THE RESOLUTION FOR CANCELLING THE HOUSE
PROPERTY KATHA NO. 64/9, AND E- KATHA NO.
150300201200620153, MEASURING 30 X 40 SQ. FT, SITUATED
AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI
TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND ETC.
W.P.NO. 25088/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT INDRASANHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-563101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADV.)
-3-
WP No. 25064 of 2022 A/W
WP No.25088 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-562110.
3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-563101.
4. THE SECRETARY
JALIJE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-563101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R.NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI M.S.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-A DATED 24.12.2021, PASSED RESOLUTION BY R4
FOR CANCELLATION OF KATHA OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY
BEARING KATHA NO.64/9/1 MEASURING 25X40 AND PROPERTY
KATHA NO. 64/9/2 MEASURING 50X15 SQFT OF RESIDENTIAL
HOUSE SITUATED AT INDRASANHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA
HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AND
ETC.
-4-
WP No. 25064 of 2022 A/W
WP No.25088 of 2022
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel Sri.Chokkareddy for petitioners and learned counsel Sri.M.S.Devaraj for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri.K.R.Nityananda, learned AGA for respondent No.1.
2. Since the grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is common and common prayer is sought for, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that against the cancellation of katha by the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat dated 02.11.2021 and 04.11.2021 respectively in respect of house property bearing katha No.64/9/1 measuring 25 x 40 sq.ft. and property bearing katha No.64/9/2 measuring 50 x 15 sq. ft. in W.P.No.25064/2022 and property katha No.64/9 and e-katha bearing No.150300201200620153 measuring 30 x 40 sq. ft. in W.P.No.25088/2022, both properties situated at Indrasanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, the petitioners were before this Court in W.P.No.21704/2021 and -5- WP No. 25064 of 2022 A/W WP No.25088 of 2022 W.P.No.21645/2021. This Court, by order dated 20.12.2021 set aside the impugned orders dated 02.11.2021 and 04.11.2021 only on the ground of non-consideration of reply/objections of the petitioners. This Court, while quashing the impugned orders dated 02.11.2021 and 04.11.2021 directed the Panchayath to consider the reply submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners would invite attention of this Court to the impugned resolutions dated 24.12.2021 and submit that the respondent-Panchayath failed to consider the objections of the petitioners and in terms of earlier orders dated 02.11.2021 and 04.11.2021, the Panchayath resolved to cancel the katha in respect of the properties in question. Learned counsel would submit that since both the orders dated 02.11.2021 and 04.11.2021 are quashed, Panchayath ought to have applied its independent mind and ought to have considered the objections filed by the petitioners. Instead of passing orders as directed by this Court, he submits that Panchayath resolved to cancel the katha in terms of the quashed orders.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.M.S.Devaraju would submit referring to the statement of objections that the -6- WP No. 25064 of 2022 A/W WP No.25088 of 2022 Panchayath was directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioners and to pass appropriate resolution. He submits that after considering the objections of the petitioners, Panchayath passed fresh resolution which according to him is in accordance with law.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the impugned Annexure-A and B resolutions in each of the writ petitions are contrary to the direction of this Court in earlier writ petitions. This Court, while setting aside the earlier resolutions dated 02.11.2021 and 04.11.2021, directed the Panchayath to consider the reply submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. The respondent-Panchayath was required to apply its independent mind. The impugned resolutions would not indicate or remotely suggest consideration of petitioners' objection. Moreover, the Panchayath could not have rejected katha of the petitioners placing reliance on the quashed resolutions/orders. Thus, I am of the view that the impugned resolutions are the result of non- application of mind. Hence, the following order: -7-
WP No. 25064 of 2022 A/W WP No.25088 of 2022
(i) The writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) The resolutions at Annexure-A dated 24.12.2021 and Annexure-B dated 30.07.2022 in both the writ petitions are quashed.
(iii) Respondent No.4/Panchayath is directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioners independently and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54 & 55