IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No. 56357 OF 2018(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Sri.K.Kumar S/o Late. Kalaiah Aged about 42 years 2. Sri.K.Siddaraju S/o Late.Kalaiah Aged about 40 years Both 1 & 2 are residing at H.D. Kote Housing Board Colony H.D.Kote Taluk-571 114, Mysore District.
3. Smt. Sharada W/o Chikka Mariyappa D/o Late. Kalaiah Aged about 38 years R/at Kaveri Doddi Village Kailancha Hobli Ramanagar Taluk-571 511 Ramanagar District. … Petitioners (By Sri.V.F.Kumbar, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Department of Panchayath Raj And Urban Rural Development Vikas Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru-560 001.
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Panchayath Development officer Bellur Grama Panchayath Kothathi Hobli Mandya Taluk-571 401.
3. Sri.Ningaiah Father’s Name not known Aged about 75 years 4. Smt. Ningi D/o Siddamma and Ningaiah Aged about 50 years 5. Smt. Jayamma D/o Late. Siddamma and Ningaiah Aged about 48 years 6. Smt.Puttaningi D/o Late. Siddamma and Ningaiah Aged about 46 years 7. Smt.Gowri D/o Late. Siddamma and Ningaiah Aged about 44 years 8. Smt. Jayalakshmi D/o Late. Siddamma and Ningaiah Aged about 42 years 9. Smt. Sarasi D/o Late. Siddamma and Ningaiah Aged about 40 years 10. Sri. Ravala S/o Late. Siddamma and Ningaiah Aged about 38 years 11. Sri.Shivanna S/o Late. Siddamma and Ningaiah Aged about 36 years 12. Sri.Puttaraju S/o Late. Siddamma and Ningaiah Aged about 34 years All are residing at Guthalu Village Mandya Taluk-571 401 Mandya District. ... Respondents (By Sri.M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1: Sri.B.J.Somayaji, Advocate for R2: R3 to R12 are served) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the resolution passed by the Respondent-2 dated: 07.09.1996 at Annexure-E; and direct Respondent-2 to consider the representations of the 2nd petitioner dated: 21.11.2016 being the legal heirs of the deceased Kalaiah, and to effect the khata of the property bearing site No.54, situated at Guttalu Village, Mandya Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South-45 feet in their names, as it is allotted to the petitioners father Late. Kalaiah At Annexure-C.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he will not press prayer (a). What is sought in prayer (b) is as follows:
(b) To issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representations of the 2nd petitioner dated 21.11.2016 being the legal heirs of the deceased Kalaiah, and to effect the khata of the property bearing site No.54, situated at Gutttalu village, Mandya Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 45 feet in their names, as it is allotted to the petitioners father late Kalaiah, vide at Annexure-C;
(c) To issue any other writ, pass any order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The case of the petitioners is that on 28.08.1975 the Tahasildar has granted site No.33 in Sy.No.54 of Guthalu Village measuring 30 x 40 feet in favour of Kalaiah, who is the father of the petitioners, within the limits of Bellur Grama Panchayath of Mandya Taluk. One Smt.Siddamma, wife of Ningaiah who is the sister of the petitioners’ father has made an application for change of katha in respect of the abovesaid site. Without conducting any enquiry the Panchayath has entered the name of Siddamma in the katha register in the year 1996. The petitioners’ father died on 01.04.2015. In the year 2016, vide Annexure C, the second petitioner has filed an application for change of katha into his name on the basis of succession. Since his representation is not considered, he has approached this Court.
3. Sri B.J.Somayaji, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that as on the date of the death of his father katha was not standing in his name Hence, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered for change of katha. Secondly, he submitted that since the katha is entered in the name of Siddamma in the year 1996, the petitioners, if they have any grievance has to approach the civil court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Be that as it may. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is not in dispute that the second petitioner has filed a representation vide Annexure-C dated 21.11.2016. The same is not considered by the second respondent. It is the duty cast on the authority to consider the representation in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, it is suffice for this Court to direct the respondent No.2 – Bellur Grama Panchayath to consider the representation at Annexure-C and pass an order in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-