IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.30761-30763/2011 (LB – RES) BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Doreswamy, Aged 57 years, S/o Kolandaswamy, R/o No.3F, Sadayan Padayachi Street-1, CHB Colony, Vellur Road, Thiruchengode, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu State – 637 211.
2. Sri. A. Ramaswamy, Aged 40 years, S/o M. Arthanari, R/o No.5, (Old), New No.10, 7th Street, CHB Colony, Vellur Road, Thiruchengode, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu State – 637 211.
3. Smt. M.R. Krishnaveni, Aged 64 years, W/o M.S. Ranganathan, R/o No.902/40, 18th Main, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010.
Rep. by GPA Holder Sri. M.S. Ranganathan, Aged 77 years, S/o late M. Sundaram. (By Sri. R.S. Hegde, Advocate) AND:
1. The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District.
2. The Secretary, Naraloru Gram Panchayath, Naralooru Village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District.
…Petitioners 3. Smt. Rajamma, Aged 55 years, W/o Muniyappa, Since deceased by her LR, Smt. Jayamma, Aged 58 years, W/o Srinivasa, R/o Near Post Office, Attibele, Attibele Village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. ...Respondents (By Sri. M.M. Prashantha, Advocate for R1 & R2; R3 served) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order in case No. V.I.C. Appeal 13/2005-06 dated 07.02.2006 vide Annexure – D; impugned order in case No.V.I.C. Appeal 12/2005-06 dated 07.02.2006 vide Annexure – G both issued by 1st respondent and impugned order/endorsement dated 02.12.2010 vide Annexure – H issued by 2nd respondent, as illegal and opposed to law and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners being aggrieved by the order at Annexures – D, G and J passed by respondent No.1 have filed the present writ petitions. The petitioners claim that they had purchased the property as per Sale Deeds dated 30.12.1993. It is stated that on the basis of the representation of the petitioners, khatha came to be effected into the name of the petitioners. By taking note of the registered sale deed, entries are made in the name of the petitioners which are produced at Annexures – C1, E1 and F1, respectively.
2. The petitioners state that subsequently on the basis of certain objections stated to have been given to respondent No.2, the entries in the name of the petitioners were discontinued. Being aggrieved by such action, petitioners had filed appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The petitioners contend that they had relied upon the registered document executed in their favour and hence are entitled to appropriate directions for continuation of the entries in the name of the petitioners. However, the appeal filed before respondent No.1 has been dismissed while observing that the copy of the Power of Attorney was not produced and hence, the Sale Deed was construed to be illegal. By virtue of the impugned order, there were consequential directions that the entries be continued in the name of Smt. Rajamma.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the Sale Deeds relied on by the petitioners at Annexure – C, E and F are registered instruments and there is a mention in the Sale Deeds as regards the registered Power of Attorney stated to have been executed by Sri. V. Muniyappa in favour of his attorney holder who has executed the Sale Deed. Copy of the registered General Power of Attorney is also enclosed at Annexure – B, which is a registered instrument.
4. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexures – D, G and J is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the Appellate Authority has no power to decline to take note of the Sale Deed by construing it to be illegal. Once the registered documents at Annexures – C, E and F were taken note of, the Appellate Authority ought to have issued appropriate directions to respondent No.2 regarding restoration of entries. It is to be noted that infact the Sale Deeds at Annexures – C, E and F make reference to the registered power of attorney and the Appellate Authority could not go beyond the registered Sale Deeds.
5. Accordingly, the orders in the appeals are set aside and cannot be sustained. In consequence, the action of respondent No.2 in discontinuing the entries in the name of the petitioners is also held to be illegal and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to take an appropriate decision taking note of the observations made above.
Accordingly, the orders at Annexures – D, G and J are set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to re- consider the matter after taking note of the observations made above and pass a considered order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In the light of the setting aside of the order in appeals, the consequential entries at Annexure – H by respondent No.2 is also set aside.
Accordingly, petitions are disposed off, subject to the above observation.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV