IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.39301/2012(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
MADASHETTY @ GIRISHETTY S/O MADASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS UPPARADODDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.G.M. ANANDA, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT M S BUIDLING DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01.
2. THE PRESIDENT ZILLA PANCHAYATH MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-511433.
3. THE PRESIDENT TALUK PANCHAYATH MADDUR TALUK MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT-571433 4. NAGARAKERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH NAGARAKERE, KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PRESIDENT 5. SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS UPPARADODDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571433.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDEESHWARA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI.B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2.8.2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.39/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TALUK PANCHAYATH DATED 25.1.2011 IN APPEAL NO.15/09-10 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner in this writ petition is questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 2.8.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.39/11-12 vide Annexure-A.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The petitioner has purchased 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.141/5A of Malagaranahalli Village vide registered sale deed dated 24.4.2000. On 21.3.2007, the petitioner has obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of land for non- agricultural purpose. Subsequently, he has filed an application before the Grama Panchayat to effect katha in his favour. By resolution dated 27.3.2008, the Grama Panchayat has changed the katha in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, Sri. Chandrakumar, the brother of respondent No.5, filed an appeal under Section 237 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”) before the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat. The Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat dismissed the said appeal by order dated 25.1.2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.5, who is not a party before the Taluka Panchayat has filed an appeal under Section 237(3) of the Act before the Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat. The Zilla Panchayat by order dated 2.8.2012 has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri.Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the appeal filed under Section 237 of the Act before the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat is dismissed, the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat cannot entertain the appeal filed under Section 237(3) of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of K.S.Nagaraja Rao –v- Chickmagalur Zilla Panchayat and others reported in (2000) 7 Kant LJ 448. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned HCGP appearing for the State has not disputed the law laid down by this Court in the case of K.S.Nagaraja Rao (supra).
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.141/5A of Malagaranahalli Village vide registered sale deed dated 24.4.2000. Subsequently, the petitioner has obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of land for non-agricultural purpose. The Grama Panchayat has changed the katha in favour of the petitioner by passing a resolution dated 27.3.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, Sri. Chandrakumar, the brother of respondent No.5 challenged the same before the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat. The Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat dismissed the said appeal by order dated 25.1.2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.5 has filed an appeal under Section 237 (3) of the Act before the Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat. The Zilla Panchayat by order dated 2.8.2012 has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5.
7. This Court in the case of K.S.Nagaraja Rao (supra) in paragraphs 7 and 8 has held as follows:
“7. In the instant case, the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat had not either interfered with the resolution of the Grama Panchayat or otherwise made any reference to the Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat. The order passed by the Adyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat was an order of dismissal of the grievance made against the resolution of the Grama Panchayat. It simply declined to interfere with the order/resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat. The Adyaksha of the ZIlla Panchyat could not have therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 237(3) or set aside the order as he appears to have done. To sum up-
a) The Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats can interfere with an order or resolution of the Grama Panchayat or any officer or authority only when the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat makes a reference to him under Section 237(2) of the Act.
b) The Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchyat can interfere with an order passed by the Taluk Panchayat, or an officer or authority of such Panchyat which expression should include the “Adhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat also only if any such order is capable of execution. An order of the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat refusing to interfere with the resolution of the Grama Panchayat not being one such order cannot be interfered with by the Adyaksha of Zill Panchayat.
8. Counsel for respondent, Ms. Vaishali Hegde, submitted that if the third respondent did not have the right to invoke Section 237(3) she should be given the liberty to question the correctness of the resolution of the Grama Panchayat and the Order of the Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat in appropriate proceedings before this Court. There is no gain said that if the statutory provisions do not provide any alternate remedy to a person aggrieved of an order passed by any authority exercising jurisdiction under the Act, the aggrieved person can take resort to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The third respondent shall therefore have the liberty to seek redress in writ proceedings if so advised.”
8. In view of the above, the impugned order is passed by the respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction and the same is unsustainable.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 2.8.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.39/11-12 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
SD/- JUDGE DM